Ruling For Free Speech vs a Congressional Law

A ruling may come down today at 10AM over the whole  TikTok issue.  USA Today is reporting that, while the Supreme Court generally does not make bench rulings on Fridays, it is rumored we could see an electronic decision  in its place.

The Justices are up against a Sunday deadline the Congress set last year when passing a law requiring TikTok to cut ties with China. If you recall, last year, the Congress gave a one-year reprieve for this to happen, rather than block TikTok from its operations without benefit to divest from its Chinese-owned parent, ByteDance. This would have caused potentially financial harm, and could have violated users’ free speech considerations.

Several weeks ago, knowing the clock was fast approaching the January 19 Congressional deadline, the Court took up the case in an emergency situation. It is still unclear what some justices could decide.

The high court could put the law on hold, could decline to intervene for now or could definitively rule on whether the law is constitutional. It seemed, during the hearing, that most of the Justices were inclined to uphold the law, based on comments they offered during the proceedings.

Free speech is an important idea and belief of our Bill of Rights, and it is immoral to deny this to anyone for any reason. That is why it is part of the First Amendment. To quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

But the Congress has the authority to decide whether a foreign-owned company, one who is owned by an adversary, should have the freedom to operate without restrictions.

Several people, including The Shark Tank’s Kevin O’Leary, have indicated they may be interested in purchasing TikTok from its current owners, and house the company in the United States as an American-owning parent. That may be a workable solution to this problem.

Perhaps the Supremes could make that a condition to extend the deadline, for a reasonable period from Sunday, and give a purchaser/investor an opportunity to raise funds and complete the transaction to everyone’s satisfaction.

After all, it is only free speech at risk here. Isn’t that something worth considering?

I am sure the Founders would agree.