From 1h ago17.53CETThe US government makes its case for banning TikTokTikToks time for oral arguments before the US Supreme Court has ended. Now its time for the US government to make its case for ByteDance to either sell the popular app to a non-Chinese parent company or cut off access to it altogether in the US.Elizabeth Prelogar, US Solicitor General, said in her opening statement, The Chinese government could weaponize TikTok at any time to harm the United States.She continued, The Chinese governments control of TikTok poses a grave threat to national security. No one disputes that the PRC seeks to undermine US interests by amassing vast quantities of sensitive data on Americans and by engaging in covert influence operations. No one disputes that the PRC pursues those goals by compelling companies like ByteDance to secretly turn over data and carry out PRC directives.Key eventsPlease turn on JavaScript to use this feature'Could the president say that were not going to enforce this law?'Justice Brett Kavanaugh posed a question that has hovered over this case since Trump was elected. Though Congress passed the legislation forcing the ban or sale of TikTok with a bipartisan majority, Trump may direct the Justice Department to take a light approach towards pushing ByteDance towards either outcome. He has filed a request with the court to stay the ban, set to take effect 19 January, at least until he takes office the next day. Trump originated the idea of a US TikTok ban, but he found a large audience there during the 2024 election. Now he favors it and stands against a ban, which he sees as an achievement by Biden.Could the president say that were not going to enforce this law? asked Kavanaugh.US solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar responded, The president has enforcement discretion. She went on to answer that third-party service providers such as Apple and Google, whose app stores control access to TikTok, may decide not to keep it available even if Trump directs the justice department towards non-enforcement, deeming the app too much of a risk. The apps disappearance could in turn prompt TikTok and ByteDance to take the possibility of a sale seriously, Prelogar said.A sale of TikTok would stop the ban. The US government said that if ByteDance divests from TikTok, it could save the app. But, foreign adversaries are not willing give up contro, US solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices. She said requiring divestiture is something that has precedent in the US.Divestiture follows a long line of barring foreign control of US communications channels and critical infrastructure, Preloger said. No matter what level of First Amendment scrutiny applies, this act is valid because it is tailored to address compelling national security threats.TikTok has repeatedly said it cannot be sold from ByteDance. Nonetheless, there are a few potential buyers, including billionaire businessman Frank McCourt, a former owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team. Hes said he secured $20bn in verbal commitments from a consortium of investors to bid for TikTok. McCourt has not yet spoken with ByteDance, making a sale a far-off possibility.The ban on TikTok could be delayed by three months if TikTok shows its working on a sale. Justice Samuel Alito asked Prelogar if a divestiture would reverse that if TikTok goes dark on 19 January.Theres nothing permanent or irrevocable that happens on January 19, Prelogar said.TikTok could stay the same if it just sold to a non-Chinese company, US saysIf TikTok wants to avoid an outright ban, parent company ByteDance has the option to sell it to another business that is not based in China and therefore under government control there. According to US solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar, the app could function the exact same way under new ownership, and the US government would have no problem with it.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked, Isnt the whole point of the divestiture requirement that the content on TikTok would be different if it was owned by a different company?Prelogar said, There is nothing in the act that would directly dictate any different mix of content on TikTok. The US subsidiary could use the same algorithm, show the same content, by the same users in exactly the same order. Its not about trying to interfere with the US subsidiarys exercise of editorial judgment.Justice Elena Kagan cracked a joke about the courts tech savvy, as she has beforeKagan asked US solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar about the governments contention that China could engage in covert content manipulation of Americans via TikTok: What do you mean by covert, though, with regards to content manipulation? Does covert its hard to figure out how the algorithm works? We could say that about any algorithm.She said of social medias recommendation algorithms, Theyre all black boxes On X, on Facebook, what are the new ones, Bluesky? You get what you get, and you think, Thats puzzling.During a case in 2013, Kagan said that supreme court justices still communicated via paper memos.The justices are not necessarily the most technologically sophisticated people, she quipped. The court hasnt really gotten to email.The US government says TikTok is hands-down a national security threat. During opening arguments, US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said the Chinese government could weaponize TikTok at any time. She said that means TikTok could be covertly used for harassment, recruitment and espionage.The PRC can be pulling the strings here, Prelogar said.The justices launched a line of questioning about the use of the word covert and asked Prelogar if she was just using that word because China is involved.Everybody now knows that China is behind it, Justice Elena Kagan said, which brought laughs from the crowd.Kagan said any social media platform could be manipulated; and the public doesnt know how any of these companies may be pulling the strings. The same could be said for Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.Its all a bit of a black box theyre all black boxes, Kagan said. I just dont get what this covert word does for you.The US government makes its case for banning TikTokTikToks time for oral arguments before the US Supreme Court has ended. Now its time for the US government to make its case for ByteDance to either sell the popular app to a non-Chinese parent company or cut off access to it altogether in the US.Elizabeth Prelogar, US Solicitor General, said in her opening statement, The Chinese government could weaponize TikTok at any time to harm the United States.She continued, The Chinese governments control of TikTok poses a grave threat to national security. No one disputes that the PRC seeks to undermine US interests by amassing vast quantities of sensitive data on Americans and by engaging in covert influence operations. No one disputes that the PRC pursues those goals by compelling companies like ByteDance to secretly turn over data and carry out PRC directives.The fact that ByteDance owns TikTok is central to this case. The justices brought up hypothetical situations describing a world where TikTok doesnt exist and creators can only publish videos directly to Chinese-owned ByteDance. The justices asked the creators lawyer, Jeffrey Fisher, if that would change the situation.Fisher said its unusual for the government to choose what entity should be the proper owner of a speech platform in the US. In that case, Americans have no right to make documentaries with the BBC, they cant work with Al Jazeera. You cant tell creators to just go publish somewhere else, he said.Justice Elena Kagan took issue with this line of argument, saying that equates foreign corporations having the same first amendment rights as US creators.Content creators say banning TikTok is tantamount to violating their first amendment rights.The justices are now hearing from a lawyer representing influencer Brian Firebaugh and a handful of other content creators. Firebaugh is a rancher and US Marine Corps veteran, who uses TikTok to talk about agricultural issues and the ranching community.The government doesnt just get to come in and say national security and its over, said Jeffrey Fisher, lawyer for Firebaugh and the other creators. You have to say what is the real harm.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said there are real harms that can happen on TikTok. She referenced an earlier line of questioning from Justice Brett Kavanaughs saying TikTok could covertly manipulate the data of US citizens. That manipulation, the justices said, could lead to blackmail and turning government workers and others into spies.Fisher contended that is a different topic, data security is different than content manipulation, he said.Amy Coney Barrett asks why ByteDance wont sellThe law that led to these arguments before the US Supreme Court holds that ByteDance must either sell TikTok to a non-Chinese owner or curtail access to the app in the US. TikTok has said divestment is not possible technologically, commercially, or legally. Beijing has indicated it would not approve such a sale.Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked TikToks lawyer Noel Francisco why ByteDance is so stubbornly refusing to sell: You keep saying shut down. The law doesnt say TikTok has to shut down. It says ByteDance has to divest. If ByteDance divested TikTok, we wouldnt be here, right? If ByteDance was willing to let you go, and willing to let you take the source code with you, wouldnt that be fine? Why is it impossible to divest in the 270 days, even assuming the Chinese government hadnt said you couldnt? The law requires divestiture within that timeframe.Francisco answered, There are two basic reasons. The first is that the underlying source code takes a team of engineers to create and maintain. It would take us many years to reconstruct a brand new team of engineers to do that. With respect to the sharing of contentin theory, we could send our salesmen around the world to re-sign up all of our users to a new platform.The deadline for TikTok to sell or divest is January 19.Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked TikToks lawyer what happens that day if the law is upheld.At least as I understand it, we go dark, Noel Francisco, TikToks lawyer said. He said TikTok wont be available in the app stores. That means the app wont be available for downloads or updates.It essentially is going to stop operating, he said. A short reprieve here would make all the sense in the world.Francisco brought up the possibility of Donald Trump intervening to halt the ban. Trump will be inaugurated one day after the ban is slated to go into effect.It is possible come January 21, 22, were in a different world, Francisco said.How will TikTok users be affected if the app is banned?TikToks 170 million users in the US will likely still be able to use the app after a ban goes into effect because it is already downloaded on their phones, experts say. But over time, without software and security updates, the app will become unusable.Some users have begun posting TikTok videos instructing others on how to use virtual private networks (VPNs), which mask an internet users location, as a way to circumvent the possible ban.Content creators who have built businesses from their TikTok followings are preparing for the worst. Nadya Okamoto, who has 4.1 million followers and founded August, a menstrual products brand, said TikTok helped her business grow organically through viral videos. A TikTok ban could force her and other small businesses to spend more on marketing and raise their costs.Its very stressful, she said. If TikTok goes away, well be OK, but it is going to be a hard hit.The Supreme Court justices explored whether TikTok -- as a corporation -- should have the freedom of speech.Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the idea that the ownership of TikTok is directly related to expressive conduct and free speech. He said that it may affect the speech of third parties, but hes not certain it affects the companys free speech.Noel Francisco, TikToks lawyer, responded, Im not sure I know of a time when the government has tried to shut down a speech platform.Justice Samuel Alito posed a hypothetical to Francisco, asking if he thought there would be a first amendment issue if a company was gathering an arsenal of information from US citizens. Francisco maintained it would still be a first amendment problem.