back to article DoJ, ByteDance ask court: Hurry up and rule on TikTok ban already

The US Department of Justice and Bytedance spent a rare moment unified on Friday when the duo asked for a fast-tracked court schedule for the Chinese short video apps divest or ban case. The duo, along with eight content creators, petitioned the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to make its decision by December 6, …

  1. VicMortimer Silver badge
    FAIL

    It's so blatantly unconstitutional, there's really no question how the court will have to rule on this one.

    It was stupid of congress to pass this nonsense, and it was stupid of Biden to sign it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The US Constitution isn't for personal interpretation.

      It's not like a Protestant Bible, where your personal interpretation, no matter how ignorant, is all that counts. Take a Civics lesson in US Law. They are not banning any medium, nor tromping on anyone's free speech rights. Congress is setting domestic ownership requirements as they do, for example, for US nuclear weapons makers. Tik-Toc's main argument seems to be that their servers in the US are too deeply intertwined with the one's in China. Which means they are implying that their CEO committed perjury before Congress.

      1. doublelayer Silver badge

        Re: The US Constitution isn't for personal interpretation.

        Neither of those statements are correct. Taking them out of order:

        "Tik-Toc's main argument seems to be that their servers in the US are too deeply intertwined with the one's in China."

        They said nothing of the kind. Their main argument is "that's not legal". Their secondary argument is "splitting this up isn't feasible this quickly". Their tertiary argument is "you can't just split one piece of software into U.S. and non-U.S. versions, no matter where the servers are, because they're still one piece of software working on a global set of content".

        "Which means they are implying that their CEO committed perjury before Congress."

        The testimony concerned wouldn't even conflict with what you say they're saying. They testified that they have Americans working with American data on American servers without the Chinese employees accessing or using it. That's it. I'm not sure I entirely believe that, but nothing in that conflicts with having a single global network which isn't easy to partition on a whim.

        "Congress is setting domestic ownership requirements as they do, for example, for US nuclear weapons makers."

        Their ability to do that is limited. Yes, there are some areas where they have that power. Nuclear weapons are a bad example, since the government is the only place buying them so they can set whatever restrictions they want. Radio and television stations might be a better example as they are also forbidden to be foreign owned (sort of). However, they do not have the legal authority to impose that regulation on anything they like whenever they like. I am not a lawyer, but I think you have overestimated how clear this case is.

  2. pavlecom
    IT Angle

    Opinion ..

    "TikTok’s ban refuses to acknowledge one fact: The platform is really, really well executed. TikTok’s algorithm is fantastic; it can compile a near-endless scroll of content that feels fresh, positive, fun and eerily, directly targeted to you."

    InsideEVs

    And do not forget, all data is on the Oracle servers, not the TikTok's, similarly Tesla now use a Baidu servers for data in China, IoV, Internet of Vehicles ...

  3. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    "see you in (Supreme) court"

    Yeah. With all Trump's cronies sitting there, I really have no idea how that will go . . .

    1. IGotOut Silver badge

      Re: "see you in (Supreme) court"

      It'll go well. It's a law from Binden, so therefore he'll be against it, regardless of merit.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Terminator

    The US DOJ doesn't control TikTok

    Title corrected for accuracy:

  5. PhilipN Silver badge

    Six months is “fast-track”?

    Aiming to compete with Jarndyce v. Jarndyce then.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like