The Supreme Court heard arguments on Friday on whether to uphold or block a law that could effectively ban TikTok in the US, with the social media giant arguing that the law is a burden on its First Amendment rights. The law, signed into effect by President Biden in April 2024, gives TikTok's parent company ByteDance until January 19 to divest its US operations or face a ban in the country.

TikTok's lawyer argued that the law is "content-based" and singles out the social media platform, as it only applies to platforms that host user-generated content, excluding business, product, and travel reviews. The company stressed that there's no way to get around the fact that this is a content-based speech restriction, as the US government is worried that ByteDance could force TikTok to adjust its mix of content, for instance by making it pro-Chinese or anti-American.

TikTok also argued that a divestment is not feasible in any timeline and is impossible because China would prevent the export of its algorithm. Even if TikTok were to do so, it would take years and the final product would be very different from what the app is today. The company suggested that a risk disclosure, such as an in-app warning, could address concerns about China's government using the platform to influence Americans' views.

Creators also weighed in on the issue, arguing that the law directly restricts their First Amendment rights to participate and speak in the "modern public square." They stressed that mere ideas do not constitute a national security risk and that restricting the right to speech is what our enemies do, not what we do in the US.

The US Department of Justice, on the other hand, argued that the law doesn't violate the First Amendment because it doesn't aim to regulate free speech on the platform or its algorithm. Instead, it wants to remove the ability for a foreign nation to get American data and exercise control over the platform. The DOJ also highlighted the risk of China accessing the personal information of Americans, citing a well-publicized incident where ByteDance employees surveilled US journalists using their location data.

The Supreme Court justices grilled both sides with tough questions, asking what exactly constitutes "TikTok speech" and how the court can ignore the fact that TikTok is owned by a Chinese company, ByteDance, which is subject to Chinese law. The justices also wanted to know why TikTok disputes the fact that the company must abide by ByteDance's directives when it comes to its algorithm and recommendation engine.

If the Supreme Court upholds the law, it will finally force ByteDance to complete divestment talks and figure out a way to keep the app operating in the US. However, if TikTok loses its case, the app will "go dark," with app stores removing it and other service providers stopping access. The company has said it is prepared to shut down rather than sell its US assets.

The outcome of this case has significant implications for the future of social media and the balance between national security concerns and individual rights. As the Supreme Court deliberates, the fate of TikTok in the US hangs in the balance.