{"id":122149,"date":"2025-01-10T17:41:56","date_gmt":"2025-01-10T17:41:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/tiktok-ban-before-the-supreme-court-live-updates-on-oral-arguments-usa-today\/"},"modified":"2025-01-10T17:41:56","modified_gmt":"2025-01-10T17:41:56","slug":"tiktok-ban-before-the-supreme-court-live-updates-on-oral-arguments-usa-today","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/tiktok-ban-before-the-supreme-court-live-updates-on-oral-arguments-usa-today\/","title":{"rendered":"TikTok ban before the Supreme Court: Live updates on oral arguments – USA TODAY"},"content":{"rendered":"

WASHINGTON \u2212Supreme Court<\/a> is hearing arguments over whether TikTok can be banned in the U.S. later this month in a case that pits two major issues \u2212 freedom of speech versus national security \u2212 against each other.
Some of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok say the court<\/a> has never confronted a free speech case that matters to so many people.
The Biden administration, which is defending a law requiring TikTok cut ties with the Chinese government or be banned, said the wildly popular short-form video app presents a grave threat to national security. China can gather data on Americans or manipulate the content on TikTok to shape U.S. opinion, the government argues.
Lawyers for TikTok and for a group of TikTok creators have finished their arguments. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar is now answering questions from the justices.
Unless the high court intervenes, Google, Apple and internet providers won’t be allowed to make TikTok available after Jan. 19.
Follow along for live coverage and updates.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh probed whether President-elect Donald Trump \u2013 who opposes a ban \u2013 can choose not to enforce it after he takes office on Jan. 20.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said presidents, in general, have enforcement discretion.
But Apple, Google and any other conduits for the app may not feel that\u2019s enough protection from the law\u2019s stiff penalties, Kavanaugh said.
Prelogar said that\u2019s not necessarily the case.
But she said Trump might want to review all the national security information that has been gathered since he was last in office before deciding whether to enforce the ban.
\u2212Maureen Groppe<\/em>
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said the Biden administration discussed potential limits on ByteDance\u2019s data sharing for years before Congress passed the law to ban it, but found no way to create a true firewall between U.S.-based TikTok and its Chinese-controlled parent.
\u201cThat didn\u2019t come across enough in the briefs,\u201d Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.
More:<\/strong>Think TikTok or Temu are safe? Cybersecurity expert says think again, delete them now<\/a>
Prelogar said there are enormous amounts of data flowing between TikTok and ByteDance to keep the algorithm updated about what are the best videos to promote. Under a confidential security agreement that ByteDance proposed, Prelogar said, a wealth of information about Americans goes back to China.
\u201cIt\u2019s eye-opening,\u201d Prelogar said. \u201cIt creates this gaping vulnerability in the system because once that data is in China, the PRC (People\u2019s Republic of China) can demand that ByteDance turn that data over and keep that assistance secret.\u201d
\u2212Bart Jansen<\/em>
Justices Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch both pressed the Justice Department\u2019s attorney on why the government\u2019s concern about China\u2019s content manipulation doesn\u2019t make the law \u00a0\u201ccontent based\u201d \u2013 which would implicate the 1st Amendment.
\u201cIt\u2019s kind of hard to avoid the word `content,\u2019\u201d Gorsuch said.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said she\u2019s not disputing that the law is related to content. But the 1st Amendment would only come into play if Congress was trying to discriminate against particular subject matters or viewpoints, she said.
\u201cHere, Congress just wants to cut the PRC out of the equation altogether and all the same speech could continue to happen on the platform,\u201d Prelogar said.
Prelogar also emphasized that the law had broad bipartisan support, which is not always the case.
\u2212Maureen Groppe<\/em>
Chief Justice John Roberts asked whether the government was saying \u201cByteDance through TikTok is trying to get Americans to argue with each other?\u201d
\u201cIf they do, I\u2019d say they\u2019re winning,\u201d Roberts said to laughter in the court.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said it very well might be true.
\u201cChina is a foreign adversary nation that looks for every opportunity it has to weaken the United States and to try to threaten our national security,\u201d Prelogar said. \u201cIf it has control over this key communications channel, it\u2019s hard to predict \u2026 exactly how it\u2019s going to use that as a tool to harm our interest.\u201d
\u2212Bart Jansen<\/em>
Justice Neil Gorsuch pushed the government on why requiring TikTok to disclose that China could manipulate content wouldn\u2019t adequately address its concerns.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said a \u201cgeneric, generalized disclosure\u201d wouldn\u2019t reasonably put users on notice about when the manipulation is happening.
Does that mean the average American won\u2019t be able to figure out that cat videos can be manipulated by China, Gorsuch asked.
Prelogar responded by comparing the situation to a sign in a store telling customers that one of the million items in that store causes cancer.
\u201cThat is not going to put you on notice about what product is actually jeopardizing your health,\u201d she said.
\u2212Maureen Groppe<\/em>
Justice Samuel Alito<\/a> asked whether another company could take TikTok\u2019s place if the company went dark, \u201cto take advantage of the very lucrative market.\u201d
\u201cI\u2019m just wondering whether this is like somebody\u2019s attachment to an old article of clothing,\u201d Alito said. \u201cIs there some reason to think only ByteDance has devised this magical algorithm?\u201d
More:<\/strong>Supreme Court Justice Alito spoke to Trump – says they didn’t discuss legal cases<\/a>
Jeffrey Fisher, a lawyer for TikTok creators, said they have tried to post on other sites and \u201cfallen dramatically short.\u201d
\u201cI think empirically other companies have been trying for a few years to catch up with TikTok and replicate it and have been very unsuccessful,\u201d Fisher said.
\u2212Bart Jansen<\/em>
Lawyers for TikTok and the TikTok creators have completed their arguments. Now it’s the Justice Department’s turn.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar began her argument by saying TikTok poses a \u201cgrave threat\u201d to national security from the People\u2019s Republic of China.
\u201cNo one disputes that the PRC seeks to undermine U.S. interest by amassing vast quantities of sensitive data about Americans and by engaging in covert influence operations,\u201d she said.
Acknowledging that millions of Americans enjoy expressing themselves on the platform, Prelogar said the law has a \u201claser like focus\u201d on that threat by requiring TikTok cut ties with China.
\u201cThe First Amendment does not bar Congress from taking that critical and targeted step to protect our nation\u2019s security,\u201d she said.
\u2212Maureen Groppe<\/em>
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked if there was any way for the TikTok creators to win the case \u2013 because of their concerns about having a place to post their content \u2013 even if the company were to lose.
Jeffrey Fisher, a lawyer for creators, said it\u2019s possible because the core speech on the platform is the millions of videos posted daily. He said the court has recognized that American listeners have a right to receive information from specific places.
\u201cI think it\u2019s possible,\u201d Jeffrey Fisher said to laughter in the courtroom. \u201cI don\u2019t think we should.\u201d
\u2212Bart Jansen<\/em>
In one of the few concerns justices have expressed so far about the government\u2019s position, Justice Neil Gorsuch said he worries about the Justice Department using classified information to help make their case about a national security threat.
Because the information is classified, TikTok isn\u2019t able to look at it to counter it.
That issue came up when the appeals court considered the case. But when siding with the government, that court said they did not rely on the classified information.
\u2212Maureen Groppe<\/em>
Justice Neil Gorsuch asked if the incoming administration can extend the Jan. 19th deadline once Donald Trump takes office, even if the Supreme Court sides against TikTok.
\u201cIs that possible as you read the law?\u201d Gorsuch asked Jeffrey Fisher, the lawyer for TikTok content providers.
Fisher said he wasn\u2019t sure and said Gorsuch should ask the Justice Department\u2019s attorney, who is up next.
Gorsuch said he plans to do that.
\u2212Maureen Groppe<\/em>
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked whether lawmakers could separate provisions of the legislation between security concerns over data collection and forcing TikTok to discuss its algorithm.
Jeffrey Fisher, a lawyer for the creators, criticized the law if the goal was to prevent data sharing.
If the company closes down, \u201cTikTok gets to keep all data,\u201d Fisher said. \u201cIt\u2019s a very weird law if you\u2019re just looking at it through a data-security lens. Maybe Congress could do better.\u201d
\u2212Bart Jansen<\/em>
A TikTok ban wouldn\u2019t mean the app disappears from current users\u2019 phones on Jan. 19.\u00a0
New users in the U.S. would likely no longer be able to download TikTok from app stores, and it would become inaccessible through internet browsers. Current users would no longer be able to download software and security updates, and the app could become unusable over time.\u00a0
But there may be ways for users to work around the ban. Content creators on the app have spread videos about using a virtual private network<\/a>, or VPN, as a way to hide their location to access TikTok. \u00a0
\u2212Bailey Schulz<\/em>
Justice Clarence Thomas asked how the law hurt the free speech of TikTok\u2019s users.
\u201cIt doesn\u2019t say anything about creators or people who use the site,\u201d Thomas said. \u201cIt\u2019s only concerned about the ownership and the concerns that data will be manipulated or there will be other national security problems with someone who is not a citizen of this country.”
Jeffrey Fisher, a lawyer representing TikTok creators, said the law regulates their text, images, real time communications and videos. He argued that Congress shouldn\u2019t be able to dictate the ownership of platforms, such as forcing X, formerly known as Twitter, to close if it changed owners
\u201cAmerican creators have the right to work with the publishers of their choice,\u201d Fisher said.
\u2212Bart Jansen<\/em>
More:<\/strong>What is Lemon8? Social media app grows in popularity but may be banned with TikTok<\/a>
Audio of today\u2019s arguments can be accessed through the Supreme Court\u2019s website<\/a>.
The arguments are scheduled for two hours but are expected to go longer.
Live Oral Argument Audio<\/a>
\u2212Maureen Groppe<\/em>
The lawyer representing content creators on TikTok opened his arguments by telling the justices the creators have the right to use the publisher of their choice.
Americans have long enjoyed the right to work with foreign publishers, Jeffrey Fisher said, calling TikTok the most vibrant speech forum in the U.S.
The government\u2019s concern that China can covertly manipulate content on that forum is not enough to overcome the 1st<\/em> Amendment issues, he said.
\u201cMere ideas do not constitute a national security threat,\u201d Fisher said, and restricting speech because it might sow doubt about U.S.\u00a0 leaders or undermine democracy \u201care the kinds of things our enemies do.\u201d
\u201cIt is not what we do in this country,\u201d he said.
\u2212Maureen Groppe<\/em>
Justice Brett Kavanaugh<\/a> said Congress and the president were concerned China is harvesting information about Americans over time to develop spies and blackmail people years from now.
\u201cIs that not a realistic assessment by Congress and the president of the risks here?\u201d Kavanaugh asked.
Noel Francisco, a Tiktok lawyer, said the platform’s data is stored on Oracle servers in Virginia. He said the law should be overturned or at least blocked temporarily because Congress didn\u2019t consider alternatives such as “massive penalties” like fining or jailing TikTok workers for data disclosures.
\u201cI\u2019m not disputing the risks,\u201d replied Francisco. \u201cI certainly acknowledge the risk but I think there are lots of reasons why that risk still can\u2019t justify the law.\u201d
Kavanaugh said concerns remain.
\u201cThat seems like a huge concern for the future of the country,\u201d Kavanaugh said.
\u2212Bart Jansen<\/em>
Asked by Justice Brett Kavanaugh what will happen on Jan. 19 if the law is not blocked, TikTok\u2019s lawyer said the platform will shut down.
\u201cAt least as I understand it, we go dark,\u201d Noel Francisco said. \u201cEssentially the platform shuts down.\u201d
After President-elect Trump takes office on Jan. 20, he said, \u201cwe might be in a different world.\u201d
Trump has said he thinks he can find another way to address the national security concerns without infringing on 1st<\/em> Amendment rights.
That\u2019s why, Francisco said, the Supreme Court<\/a> should at least put the law on hold to \u201cbuy everyone some breathing space.\u201d
\u2212Maureen Groppe<\/em>
Chief Justice John Roberts<\/a> pushed back on TikTok\u2019s argument that the government\u2019s interference with the company\u2019s ownership infringes on the expression of other people.
He asked TikTok\u2019s lawyer to point to a previous case where regulating a corporate structure has been treated as a violation of the 1st<\/em> Amendment.
Francisco said he didn\u2019t have an example at his fingertips. But he said it\u2019s still clear that government telling a company \u201cyou have to stop talking unless somebody ese does something\u201d directly affects the company\u2019s speech.
\u2212Maureen Groppe<\/em>
Justice Elana Kagan pushed TikTok on why the main effects of the law are on TikTok, rather than the parent company ByteDance, which is not protected by the 1st<\/em> Amendment.
TikTok can still go out and find the best available algorithm if it\u2019s divested from ByteDance, she said.
TikTok\u2019s lawyer said the effects on the American company are not incidental. The company won\u2019t be able to operate in 10 days unless it\u2019s sold.\u00a0
Francisco also said ByteDance has 1st<\/em> Amendment rights when it is operating in the United States, as do TikTok and its users.
\u2212Maureen Groppe<\/em>
Justice Amy Coney Barrett said TikTok\u2019s examples of free speech include the independence to be supportive of China. She said the concern is with covert manipulation of those messages.
\u201cA lot of your examples talk about \u2026 the right of an American citizen to repeat what a foreign entity says, or say, \u2018I\u2019m hitching my wagon to China. I want to say everything China does,\u2019\u201d Barrett said. \u201cHere the concern is about the covert content manipulation of the algorithm. That is something that ByteDance wants to speak, right?\u201d
Noel Francisco, a TikTok lawyer, said it was ultimately TikTok’s choice whether to put content on the platform and he denied that TikTok wants to parrot Chinese propaganda.
\u201cWe absolutely resist any kind of content manipulation by China at all,\u201d Francisco said.
\u2212Bart Jansen<\/em>
Justice Neil Gorsuch said the government and TikTok dispute how much control China has over the company and asked what the record shows.
\u201cSomebody has to be right,\u201d he said.
Francisco said TikTok can choose not to use ByteDance\u2019s algorithm, though that would be a bad business decision.
But if TikTok is being pressured by China to do something nefarious, the company can shut down. That underscores why TikTok, an American company, has First Amendment rights, Francisco said.
\u2212Maureen Groppe<\/em>
Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked whether the justices should consider the long history of the government preventing foreign control of media, one of the considerations cited by an appeals court judge who earlier sided with the government.
Francisco said that\u2019s not important in this case because previous restrictions were tied to the limited number of broadcasting licenses available. There\u2019s no scarcity on the internet, he said.
\u2212Maureen Groppe<\/em>
The case turns at least in part on whether TikTok has a First Amendment right to keep operating, so Justice Clarence Thomas<\/a> asked \u201cexactly what is TikTok\u2019s speech here?\u201d
Thomas asked why a restriction on ByteDance, a Chinese company, represents a limit on TikTok.
Noel Francisco, a former solicitor general representing TikTok, said it is the algorithm that decides what is the best mix of content for its users. Losing the ByteDance algorithm thorugh a sale of TikTok, would limit the app’s ability to serve its users.
\u201cThat\u2019s a direct burden on TikTok\u2019s speech,\u201d Francisco said.
–Bart Jansen<\/em>
Nora Miller, 20, walked to the Supreme Court with a gaggle of Drake University students before the sun came up this morning for a shot at witnessing history. The case, Miller said, has been a constant topic of conversation among people her age. \u00a0
But her classmate, Olivia Swaney, said the prospect of TikTok vanishing on Jan. 19 still doesn\u2019t feel real. \u00a0
\u201cThis will be the first time we really see a whole lot of, like, regulation on social media,\u201d Swaney said. \u201cIt feels unreal but real at the same time that we’re having a Supreme Court case over an app that we all like to watch cat videos on.\u201d\u00a0
If the Court upholds the ban, Miller and Swaney say they\u2019ll likely increase their use of Instagram<\/a> because the algorithms of the photo app are the most similar. Others, including 21-year-old Eli Benson, say they might take a TikTok ban as a cue to decrease their social media consumption. \u00a0
\u201cMaybe this is my sign to be done,\u201d Benson said. \u201cI would be ready for a little bit less social media.\u201d\u00a0
\u2212Karissa Waddick<\/em>\u00a0
President-elect Donald Trump<\/a>\u00a0claims he can \u201csave\u201d TikTok and asked the\u00a0Supreme Court<\/a>\u00a0to pause a law that could\u00a0ban the social media platform in the U.S.<\/a> \u2212 a big change from his first term, when he wanted it shut down.
Congress agreed last year to ban TikTok by Jan. 19 unless it was divested from ByteDance, its China-based parent company, because of national security concerns about the Chinese gathering data on American users.
That position echoed Trump\u2019s position in 2020<\/a>, when he signed an executive order as president\u00a0ordering ByteDance to sell or spin off its U.S. assets within 90 days. The order was challenged in court and never came to fruition.
More:<\/strong>Trump becomes first ex-president sentenced for criminal conviction: live updates<\/a>
Since then, Trump has accumulated 14.7 million followers on TikTok and founded his own social media platform, Truth Social. During 2024, he campaigned that he could \u201csave TikTok.\u201d
Trump told the Supreme Court taht voters have given him a mandate to protect their free-speech rights.
\u2212Bart Jansen<\/em>
The lawyer representing TikTok opened his argument by telling the justices that one of American\u2019s most popular speech platforms will shut down in nine days unless they intervene.
Banning TikTok, Noel Franciso said, would violate the free speech rights of the company and its users.
The law Congress passed is singling the platform out for \u201cuniquely harsh treatment\u201d because of the government\u2019s fear about what might happen in the future.
There are better ways of addressing that concern, he said.
\u2212Maureen Groppe<\/em>
Monica Vasquez, 21, huddled with friends and fellow students from a University of California semester program in Washington, D.C., to stay warm as she waited to enter the Supreme Court.\u00a0
Vasquez, a political science student, said she was intrigued by the case\u2019s central questions about whether a ban on the video platform would inhibit the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. \u00a0
Like many people her age, Vasquez said she predominantly gets her news from the social media platform and doesn\u2019t see the national security concerns others have warned about.\u00a0
\u201cPeople are like, \u2018Oh, but they’re stealing our data. I was like, ‘Everyone’s stealing my data,’\u201d she said. \u201cYou’re banning a whole app because of the fact that it’s not run by America, it’s a Chinese company. I think that’s kind of insane.\u201d\u00a0
\u2212Karissa Waddick<\/em>\u00a0
Not all the information the government has to persuade the court that TikTok poses a \u201cgrave\u201d national security risk can be presented in public. Classified information is also part of the record.
The appeals court judges who sided with the government said they did not rely on the classified information in upholding the Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.
Lawyers for TikTok told the Supreme Court they shouldn\u2019t even consider the classified materials since they weren\u2019t part of the decision they\u2019re reviewing.
\u2212Maureen Groppe<\/em>
Callie Goodwin flew in from South Carolina with her friend and fellow TikTok content creator Sarah Baus to watch the oral arguments on Friday. Goodwin, 30, and Baus, 27, both said they rely on TikTok for their livelihoods.\u00a0
Goodwin, who owns a small greeting card and personalized gift store called Sparks Of Joy Co, said as much as 98% of her sales\u00a0come from people who find her business on TikTok. Several months ago, during the height of the holiday gift shopping season, she said she sold over $30,000 worth of products on the app in just nine days.
\u201cIf we were to lose TikTok, I really fear for the survival of my business,\u201d Goodwin told USA TODAY while waiting in line Friday morning. She\u00a0argues that TikTok\u2019s unique algorithm allows small businesses like hers to flourish in a way other platforms, like Meta\u2019s Facebook and Instagram, don\u2019t. \u00a0
\u201cWe’ve got 115,000 followers over on TikTok. We’ve got, like, less than 3,000 (followers) combined between Instagram and Facebook,\u201d she said. \u201cTo\u00a0have that entire community, that customer base, and that ability to reach our target audience wiped out would be devastating for my business.\u201d\u00a0
\u2212Karissa Waddick<\/em>\u00a0
The debate over TikTok comes as the platform has grown in popularity as a source of information.
About four in ten young adults in the U.S. regularly get news from the app,\u00a0according to the Pew Research Center<\/a>.
No social media platform the center has studied has seen faster growth in the share of Americans who regularly turn to it for news.
\u2212Maureen Groppe<\/em>
President-elect Donald Trump<\/a>, in a legal filing last month, urged the Supreme Court to pause the impending ban. He said that once he takes office on Jan. 20, he can find a way to address the national security concerns about TikTok without compromising free speech.
If the court does not do that, Trump could direct his attorney general not to enforce the ban. The problem with that is whether Apple, Google and any other conduits for the app will feel that\u2019s enough protection from the law\u2019s stiff penalties.
\u2212Maureen Groppe<\/em>
More:<\/strong>Can Trump save TikTok? The \u2018Art of the Deal\u2019 President wants to try<\/a>
Around 70 people waited outside the Supreme Court on Friday morning in 20 degree weather to hear oral arguments. Almost all were bundled up in with scarfs, hats and hoods over their heads \u2014 some wrapped themeselves in blankets and one man wore ski goggles.
Ashley Wilson, 30, arrived at the Court last night around 7:30 p.m. to get a spot in line. Aside from two brief bathroom breaks at her apartment in DC’s nearby Chinatown, she\u2019s been here for more than 12 hours.
A lawyer by day, Wilson runs a TikTok channel where she streams court cases and discusses criminal law. Amid the Arctic chill, she was live-streaming her experience in line and explaining the contours of the case for followers.
More:<\/strong>No more ‘Facebook jail’: What will take the place of Meta’s fact-checking system<\/a>
\u201cI\u2019m honestly going in with an open mind,\u201d she said. \u201cI\u2019m ready to hear evidence, if there is evidence of threats. I’m not sure that we’ve covered evidence of that so so far about national security concerns, but I’m very open minded to hearing it.\u201d
If the court upholds the pending TikTok ban, Wilson said she\u2019ll likely find another hobby rather than migrating her content to another platform \u2212 like Meta\u2019s Instagram Reels<\/a> or YouTube.
\u2212Karissa Waddick<\/em>
The court is hearing the case<\/a> on an extremely expedited basis because of the impending Jan. 19 deadline for TikTok to divest from its parent company, ByteDance.
The court could decide quickly whether to at least pause the deadline while the justices decide if they will uphold the law.
Although that wouldn’t be a final decision, it would give a strong indication of which way the court is likely to rule.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar<\/a>, the Biden administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, is taking on one last big case before the change in administrations.
Prelogar will face off against Noel Francisco<\/a>, who was President-elect Donald Trump’s solicitor general in Trump’s first administration and is representing TikTok.
Jeffrey Fisher<\/a>, a partner at O\u2019Melveny & Myers who has argued four dozen cases at the court, is representing TikTok creators.
The justices are debating whether requiring the divesture of TikTok from ByteDance infringes on Americans’ 1st Amendment rights of free speech.
If it does, the government has to convince the court that they have a good reason for doing so and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal.
How high a bar this will be for the government to clear depends on how much \u2212 if at all \u2212 the justices think the law is regulating speech.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit<\/a>\u00a0unanimously upheld the law.
Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote that the law was \u00a0was \u201ccarefully crafted\u201d and is part of a broader effort to counter a well-substantiated national security threat posed by China.
Two of three judges were appointed by Republican presidents \u2212Trump and Ronald Reagan. The third was appointed by a Democrat, Barack Obama.
Congress last year passed the law<\/a> being challenged with broad bipartisan support and President Joe Biden<\/a> signed it into law.
TikTok had proposed ways of addressing the government\u2019s concern without a sale.
But the Biden administration concluded that some data of U.S. users would still flow to China and ByteDance would still be able to exert control over TikTok\u2019s operations in the U.S. The administration also didn\u2019t trust that ByteDance would comply in good faith and didn\u2019t think the U.S. could adequately monitor compliance.<\/p>\n

source<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

WASHINGTON \u2212Supreme Court is hearing arguments over whether TikTok can be banned in the U.S. later this month in a case that pits two major issues \u2212 freedom of speech versus national security \u2212 against each other.Some of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok say the court has never confronted a free speech case […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":122150,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-122149","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-us","8":"entry"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122149","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=122149"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122149\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/122150"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122149"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=122149"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=122149"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}