TikTok at the Supreme Court

Free speech and national security can often conflict. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln prevented newspapers from publishing pro-Confederate material. During later wars, the federal government suppressed criticism. After the 9/11 attacks, Congress made it a crime to provide even human rights advice to extremist groups.

In each case, government officials argued that they needed to restrict speech to protect Americans. And in each case, free speech advocates argued that the government had gone too far and undermined the country’s values.

The same is true about the latest conflict between speech and security — involving TikTok, the social media platform owned by a Chinese company.

In response to concerns that China can use the platform to spy on Americans and spread propaganda, Congress last year passed a law requiring TikTok’s parent company to sell it to a non-Chinese owner. TikTok and the parent company, ByteDance, then sued to block the law. This morning, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case.

In today’s newsletter, I’ll lay out each side’s best arguments. Whatever your own views, I encourage you to recognize that there is no perfect solution, just as there was no perfect solution to the earlier conflicts between national security and free speech. Prioritizing one probably means compromising the other.

TikTok as speech

The argument to leave TikTok alone starts with its popularity. About 170 million Americans, equal to half the country’s population, use the app. They entertain themselves, communicate with friends, follow the news, go shopping and operate businesses.