Eight free-speech groups, including the EFF, and three members of Congress file briefs with SCOTUS in support of TikTok's appeal against the divest-or-ban law
For those of you who haven't been following, the law doesn't *ban* TikTok—instead, it'll prohibit “app stores” and the like from offering it or servicing it after 01/19 *if* (and only if) there isn't a divestment of TikTok from PRC ownership by then. … Marty Lederman / @martylederman : While waiting for other briefs, I'll interlineate a few thoughts and things to look for. FWIW, I think it's highly likely the SCOTUS will uphold the law. My posts here will reflect some of the reasons why I think so. I don't have any strong views on whether the law was wise. [5] Marty Lederman / @martylederman : And here's the Knight Institute brief, also in opposition. [3] — www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ 24... @knightcolumbia.org @jameeljaffer.bsky.social X: Ryan Calo / @rcalo : Lots of people contributed but counsel @WillkieFarr and profs @AnupamChander @dispositive and Ash Bhagwat took the lead. (Correct me if I'm leaving folks out!) Thanks for the opportunity to work on this important intervention. Ryan Calo / @rcalo : The Act implicates the speech of millions of Americans. Congress thinks you can cut and paste the dynamic conversation that is TikTok to another platform. This is nonsense. The ban would shut down a music festival because Spotify. Ryan Calo / @rcalo : Here is our amicus brief submitted to the Suprem Court on behalf of First Amendment and Internet Law Scholars arguing that the TikTok ban is unconstitutional. https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ... See also Mediagazer