Supreme Court hears TikTok’s final plea against US ban

The future of the law banning or banning TikTok is now in the hands of the US Supreme Court after a three-hour hearing before the last day of the TV platform.

On Friday, the nine judges of the court heard from lawyers representing TikTok, producers and the US government if the law requiring it to be banned in the US – unless it is sold by the parent company ByteDance – threatens free speech.

Noel Francisco, a former US attorney general who appeared on the platform, insisted that the ban would violate the legal rights of about 170 million American users.

A representative of the platform developers argued that they should be free to use the publisher they want.

But the government urged judges to follow a law passed by Congress last year.

It passed a law against TikTok with the support of both the Democratic and Republican parties – a moment that marked the end of years of concern about the hugely popular platform, which is known for its viral videos and appeal to young people.

It requires ByteDance to sell TikTok in the US or cease operations on January 19.

On Friday, Justice Department attorney Elizabeth B Prelogar argued in court that ByteDance’s ties to the Chinese government made it a national security risk.

He told the court that Beijing “could use TikTok at any time to harm the United States”.

He later said that the warning issued on TikTok to users may not be sufficient to address concerns about its relationship with China, and may not adequately address national security issues.

At the end of the trial, Mr. Francisco wanted to confirm that “the government cannot stop speech to protect us from speech”.

“That’s exactly what this law does from start to finish.”

But his arguments have been heavily scrutinized by the justices, who often return to the national security concerns that prompted the law.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh expressed concern over the US government’s release of information the app collects from users and how that data can be used.

Threats that are seen as “very worrying for the future of the country”, he said.

In December, US President-elect Donald Trump he asked the court to postpone his decision until he returns to the White House to help him find a political solution to his problems.

TikTok’s lawyer told the court on Friday that, as he saw it, the platform “will go dark” on January 19 without intervention.

Mr Prelogar, arguing with the US Department of Justice, said there was “nothing concrete” to be done on that date and the time for the sale was still there.

Forcing the app to go dark would be a “jolt” for ByteDance to seriously consider selling, he said.

“It will change the landscape and what ByteDance can think about,” he said, comparing the current situation to a “game of chicken” and one that the US should not “blink”.

The judges have now considered their decision. A decision is expected in the coming days.

Over 100 people braved the freezing cold in Washington DC to attend in person.

Danielle Ballesteros, a student at UC San Diego, said they have been waiting outside the court since 06:30 local time.

“I feel like TikTok shouldn’t be banned,” he told BBC News.

While admitting that he would use it “probably a lot”, he said he believes the program is the most important issue of his generation.

The law passed by Congress does not ban the use of the app, but it would require tech giants like Apple and Google to stop offering and block updates, which experts say could kill it in the long run.

The US says that TikTok is a “big threat” because the Chinese government could force its owner, ByteDance, to change the content it uses or change what it shows to users in China.

TikTok has repeatedly denied any influence from the Chinese Communist Party and has said the law violates the First Amendment rights of its users.

TikTok is already banned from government devices in many countries, including the UK. It is facing many restrictions in other countries, including India.

Last December, a three judges appealed the court’s decision upheld the lawnoting China’s history of doing things through the private sector and saying that this was justified as “part of an effort to deal with a proven national security threat” by the country.

Jeffrey L Fisher, a law professor at Stanford University who represented the manufacturers who sued the law, told the court on Friday that the country has been facing “political attacks against foreign enemies”.

But he said that under the First Amendment, mere opinions do not constitute a threat to national security.