VCU news

By Sian Wilkerson

This week, the Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on the fate of popular social media app TikTok’s operations in the United States. Proponents of the ban argue that the app, which is owned by a China-based parent company, represents a national security threat, while critics of the ban cite freedom of speech. If upheld, the law, which was passed by Congress in April, would go into effect Jan. 19.

Virginia Commonwealth University’s William Pelfrey Jr., an expert in homeland security, said implications of such a ban are wide-ranging – and may not be necessary.

Although there is evidence that countries including China have attempted to influence elections, engage in cyberattacks and disrupt activity in the U.S., the TikTok ban “targets a very popular platform that does not represent an obvious national security threat,” said Pelfrey, Ph.D., a professor in the L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs. “Hacking into the Pentagon is a clear security threat. Posting cooking or dancing videos is not.”

Pelfrey spoke with VCU News about the looming decision and what might happen next.

What is the reasoning behind a TikTok ban in the U.S.?

There are several reasons. One is the strong perception that ByteDance, the Chinese tech firm that owns TikTok, is manipulated by the Chinese government. American legislators are concerned that TikTok and ByteDance are collecting sensitive information and providing that data to the Chinese government. This includes all of the data collected and held on any cellphone or system that has downloaded the TikTok app.

Another concern is that TikTok is propagating misinformation and/or influencing political thinking and, therefore, elections.

What are the implications of such a ban?

If TikTok is banned, the implications for freedom of speech and national security are significant. The argument for national security has sometimes outweighed freedom of speech concerns.

The Supreme Court will likely decide whether the law banning TikTok is implemented, and there are several precedents where the court has ruled in favor of national security over freedom of speech. The most recent major case – Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project – was decided in 2010. In this case, the court determined that free speech that supported a terrorist organization was not protected by the First Amendment.

China is not a terrorist organization and, as a state actor, is very different from a nonstate actor, such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda. If the ban is upheld by the Supreme Court in this case, the law will indicate that actions conducted by a government that is not an ally of the United States may be deemed a threat to national security.

The business implications are also substantial. Most of the largest businesses in the world conduct business in China. Finding the limits of the national security priority will be very difficult and should result in frequent litigation. Other businesses that work with China, such as Apple, will have to demonstrate that information security is a priority, and that could be very challenging.

Furthermore, China may retaliate and start to ban U.S. businesses. Already China has told government agencies to use phones produced in China instead of Apple iPhones, and expanding that ban could have a major impact on Apple, the largest market cap company in the world.