editorial  – Protecting American Data: Why the TikTok Divestment Bill is Essential

Editorial  – Protecting American Data: Why the TikTok Divestment Bill is Essential

In a resounding victory for American data security, the House of Representatives took a decisive step last week by passing a bill that demands TikTok, the popular social media platform, to sever ties with its parent company, ByteDance, based in Beijing, as was recently reported in The Wall Street Journal.  The overwhelming 352-65 vote in favor of this bill marks a crucial moment in safeguarding our nation’s digital sovereignty.

This legislative action reflects a necessary response to the undeniable threat posed by TikTok, an app that has long deceived users regarding the privacy and security of their data. Despite assurances from TikTok that U.S. user data remains beyond the reach of the Chinese Communist Party, recent revelations have shattered this illusion. Leaked recordings and investigative reports have exposed TikTok’s egregious data collection practices, revealing that sensitive information, including user locations, browsing histories, and biometrics, are not only accessible but actively exploited by ByteDance and its affiliates.

The admission by ByteDance in December 2022 that some of its employees clandestinely spied on American journalists underscores the urgent need for action. Despite promises to isolate U.S. data, subsequent reports have shown continued data sharing among TikTok staff and ByteDance, raising alarming concerns about the extent of Chinese government influence within the company.

To protect our national security and uphold the integrity of our digital infrastructure, it is imperative to implement measures that sever TikTok’s ties with China. The divestment bill represents a prudent and necessary step towards achieving this goal. By mandating TikTok’s separation from ByteDance, the bill ensures that American user data remains free from foreign interference and exploitation.

Critics may argue that such measures are unprecedented or overly restrictive. However, it is crucial to recognize that the United States has a long history of safeguarding its communications infrastructure from foreign control. The Federal Communications Commission’s ban on telecom carriers and equipment from companies such as China Mobile and Huawei exemplifies our commitment to protecting national interests in the digital realm. Moreover, existing federal laws already prohibit foreign governments from holding broadcast licenses, reflecting a consistent stance on safeguarding our sovereignty.

In light of these precedents and the clear evidence of TikTok’s complicity in data exploitation, the divestment bill is a prudent and proportionate response. It is not about stifling innovation or impeding international cooperation but about safeguarding American interests and ensuring that our digital landscape remains free from foreign influence.

As the Senate deliberates over the TikTok divestment bill, it is crucial to dispel any misconceptions regarding its constitutionality. Despite claims to the contrary, requiring TikTok to sever ties with the Communist Party does not violate the First Amendment. On the contrary, it represents a necessary step in safeguarding national security and preserving the integrity of our democratic institutions.

Critics of the bill often invoke the First Amendment, arguing that it protects TikTok’s right to free speech. However, this argument overlooks a crucial distinction made by the Supreme Court between laws targeting the content of speech and those regulating conduct. The TikTok divestment bill squarely falls into the latter category, as it addresses TikTok’s actions, which pose a significant national security threat, rather than the content of its users’ speech.

The landmark Supreme Court case of Arcara v. Cloud Books (1986) provides clear precedent for the constitutionality of laws targeting conduct rather than speech. In Arcara, the court upheld a New York state public-health nuisance statute aimed at closing a bookstore being used for prostitution. Despite objections from the owners citing First Amendment protections, the court recognized that the statute targeted unlawful conduct unrelated to expressive activity.

Similarly, the TikTok divestment bill is directed at addressing espionage and national security concerns, not restricting speech. The Constitution does not require the government to turn a blind eye to threats posed by foreign adversaries simply because a platform also facilitates speech. Just as the government can prosecute individuals for using a pen to commit theft, it can regulate platforms like TikTok when they engage in conduct detrimental to national security.

It is essential to understand that the bill does not infringe on the freedom of speech or expression. Americans remain free to engage in any form of speech, including on platforms like TikTok. However, when such platforms are exploited by foreign actors to undermine our national security, it is the government’s responsibility to take appropriate action.

The TikTok divestment bill aligns with both the letter and spirit of the Constitution and reflects our longstanding commitment to protecting against foreign adversary control. By addressing the conduct of TikTok and its ties to the Communist Party, the bill prioritizes national security while upholding the fundamental principles of democracy and free speech.