Our First Amendment right to express ourselves must be protected.
,
she/her,
Senior Staff Attorney,
ACLU National Security Project
Patrick Toomey,
Deputy Director,
ACLU National Security Project
January 15, 2025
Our First Amendment right to express ourselves must be protected.
Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in one of the most important First Amendment cases of our time: TikTok v. Garland. Brought by TikTok and its users, the suit challenges a law passed last Congress that will functionally ban the platform in the U.S.starting January 19. If upheld, the law won’t just impact the more than 170 million Americans who use TikTok, it will also endanger the constitutional rights of every American to speak and receive information online.
As explained in the friend-of-the-court brief the ACLU and its partners filed with the Supreme Court, under the First Amendment the government must meet an extraordinarily high bar to ban an entire communications platform. To ban TikTok, the government must show that the ban is the only way to prevent serious, imminent harm to national security and that the ban limits no more speech than necessary to accomplish that purpose. The government has not come close to meeting that standard.
The law at issue gives the president unprecedented power to shut down Americans’ speech and access to information under the guise of protecting national security. It requires TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to sell the app or face a ban, while also granting the president broad authority to force divestiture and ban other communications platforms with corporate parents based in China.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) argues the law has two purposes: to limit the Chinese government’s ability to “covertly” manipulate what Americans see on TikTok, and to prevent the Chinese government from accessing Americans’ data. But, given the lack of evidence that TikTok is being exploited in either of these ways, neither satisfies the First Amendment high bar.
The government’s first justification boils down to fear of Chinese government propaganda. Indeed, more than 20 legislators justified their support for banning TikTok in these terms; citing the risk of foreign propaganda as well as other concerns about the content carried on TikTok, such as the content available to minors and the alleged suppression of pro-Ukraine videos.
As a general rule, the government can’t simply ban speech it dislikes. When Congress restricts speech based on its content or viewpoint, and especially when it bars speech in advance, it triggers the strictest test under the First Amendment. That test requires, among other things, real evidence of serious harm. But the DOJ has acknowledged there is no evidence that China is covertly manipulating TikTok’s content in the U.S.
Regardless, courts have long held that the government cannot keep Americans from accessing foreign propaganda. In 1965, the court struck down a law that required the postmaster general to detain “communist political propaganda,” which could be delivered to recipients only after they specifically requested it from the U.S. post office. In its decision, the court reasoned that even this “mere burden” was an unconstitutional effort to “control the flow of ideas to the public.”
Congress’s second justification for the law—to protect Americans’ data from the Chinese government—also fails under the First Amendment. While it is true that TikTok collects large amounts of user data, the government hasn’t pointed to any actual or imminent national security harm from this collection or explained how TikTok’s collection differs from that of countless other companies. But a ban would not effectively address Americans’ data security anyway, because the Chinese government, or other foreign entities, can purchase Americans’ personal data on the open market.
The law’s supporters have, at times, minimized the ban’s impact on the First Amendment, citing the mistaken belief that TikTok users can simply move to another platform. From a constitutional perspective, this is nonsense. The government can’t justify shutting down The Washington Post because readers can simply buy The New York Times instead. Others have likened the TikTok ban to existing restrictions on foreign ownership of radio licenses, arguing that if those rules are constitutional, so is this ban. That’s misleading. Those rules govern the allocation of a limited set of broadcast frequencies. The internet doesn’t have such constraints; it can accommodate an endless number of apps and platforms, offering Americans unlimited sources of information.
Banning TikTok is unprecedented, unconstitutional, and un-American. If the Supreme Court allows the government to shut down an entire platform on such a flimsy evidentiary record, it would set a disturbing precedent for future government restrictions on online speech. It would also increase the risk that sweeping invocations of “national security” will trump our constitutional rights.
The government does not get to control how Americans express themselves—on or offline—based on vague and hypothetical harms. This is the hallmark of authoritarian regimes, not the U.S.. The Supreme Court must block the ban and defend the freedoms at the heart of our democracy.
Related Content
-
ACLU and CDT Urge Court to Stop Government from Punishing Anthropic for Important Advocacy on AI Guardrails
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) filed an amicus brief in Anthropic’s lawsuit in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the company’s designation as a “supply-chain risk” by the Department of Defense. The designation purports to prohibit anyone from using Anthropic’s tools in connection with Defense Department work. Anthropic’s lawsuit argues that this designation was in retaliation for the company’s First Amendment-protected advocacy related to AI safety, including the urgent need for artificial intelligence (AI) guardrails that prohibit the U.S. military from using these powerful new tools for fully autonomous weapons and mass domestic surveillance. “AI-powered surveillance poses immense dangers to our democracy. Anthropic’s public advocacy for AI guardrails is laudable and protected by the First Amendment — not something the Pentagon should be punishing,” said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “Our privacy laws are lagging decades behind the government’s ability to capture and exploit our data using AI tools, which can easily reveal the most intimate details of our lives. Anthropic has been right to speak out, but Congress also must step up to protect us from mass spying.” The brief explains why Anthropic’s advocacy for AI guardrails is vitally important and describes the dangers posed by AI tools when applied to immense datasets containing sensitive information — including how these tools can invade privacy, chill speech, and facilitate discriminatory profiling. The groups also explain how existing U.S. privacy laws are inadequate to protect people in the United States, especially in light of loopholes the government has long exploited to justify sweeping surveillance. And it emphasizes why, as a result, Anthropic’s advocacy for strict limitations on the government’s use of AI is critical to protecting the public’s privacy interests. “AI can enable surveillance that is unprecedented in its detail, scope, and scale, and that poses a profound threat to the freedoms our democracy depends on. The right to privacy, freedom of speech, and freedom of association are fundamental to our country and to our Constitution,” said Samir Jain, vice president of policy at CDT. “By exploiting the data broker loophole, the government has access to unprecedented data on our lives, our routines, and our relationships. Combining that data with the power of AI would expand the Pentagon’s surveillance powers exponentially, and companies like Anthropic are well within their rights to push back on that outcome.” As the amicus brief shows, while Anthropic has rightly advocated for AI guardrails, people in the U.S. deserve a lasting legislative solution to protect their privacy. The ACLU and CDT have been vocal supporters of the bipartisan Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, a commonsense reform bill that would ban the government from buying data it would otherwise need a warrant to obtain.
-
Legal Experts Underscore Illegality of U.S. Boat Strikes at Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Hearing
GUATEMALA CITY — On Friday, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights held the first hearing of its kind on the legality of U.S. boat strikes in the Caribbean and the harm they are causing communities across Latin America. The ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, International Crisis Group and UN human rights experts presented to the commission on how the United States’ lethal-strike policy violates both domestic and international law. U.S. representatives were in attendance, and decried the attempt to hold them accountable. “We are doing everything in our power to hold the Trump administration responsible for its egregious violations of both U.S. and international law, and that includes asking the widely respected Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to investigate these heinous killings,” said Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU’s Human Rights Program. “The administration can act as outraged and indignant as they want, but Friday’s hearing was a vital first step for establishing international accountability for the lawless policy that claimed the lives of at least 156 people and created another dangerous example of state-sanctioned violence with impunity. The fact that the Trump administration is lashing out at the ACLU and at the Commission is just another preposterous attempt to evade accountability and deflect attention from the government’s crimes.” At the convening, the human rights experts highlighted that under both U.S. and international law, it is flagrantly illegal to use the military to kill civilians suspected only of crimes. The United States is not in an armed conflict with anyone in Latin America. That means the people on these boats are civilians. Civilians, including those suspected of smuggling drugs, are not lawful targets. The Commission also heard arguments on the U.S. government’s duty under international treaties to investigate these extrajudicial killings and hold officials accountable for the murders of at least 156 people. Ben Saul, the U.N. special rapporteur for protecting fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, accused the U.S. of “responding with lawless violence that flagrantly violates human rights, in its phony war on so-called narco-terrorism.” The special rapporteur also made clear that “drug trafficking is a crime, not war,” and that the portrayal of suspected drug traffickers as being responsible for “speculative drug overdoses” did not constitute a “permissible law enforcement action in personal self-defense or the defense of others.” In addition, the groups outlined the illegal nature of these strikes and how they violate the UN charter and human rights obligations that bind the United States The groups’ called on the commission to declare the U.S. boat strike policy in violation of international law, to conduct an investigation into the policy, and to convene a special meeting with OAS member states affected by the U.S. policy, and make recommendations on how to refrain from aiding or abetting or otherwise being complicit in the U.S. government’s violations of international law. “These extrajudicial killings were poorly veiled cover to justify the illegal overthrow of the Venezuelan government, as admitted by White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles,” said Angelo Guisado, senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. “The administration’s desire to play imperial superpower in the region cannot be a reason to completely displace the foundations of international law.” Reps. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) and Sara Jacobs (D-CA) also sent a letter to the commission urging them to “scrutinize this administration’s policy and help advance accountability in the international arena.” Last week’s hearing was one of many legal avenues the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights are taking to hold the Trump administration accountable for these strikes. They also represent two of the victims’ families in their efforts to seek redress and separately are suing for the release of the Trump administration’s legal memo justifying these strikes. Video of the hearing is available here
Court Case: Burnley v. U.S.: Demanding Accountability on Caribbean Boat Strikes
-
National Security
More Than 250 Groups Oppose Additional Spending on Trump’s Illegal Iran War
WASHINGTON. D.C. – Members of Congress should vote against any additional funding for President Donald Trump’s unconstitutional war on Iran, more than 200 groups said today in a letter sent to Congress. Waging a war of choice that costs an estimated $1 billion a day not only fails to address the economic squeeze and health care crisis facing Americans, but diverts federal funding from an array of urgent domestic priorities. The letter was led by Public Citizen, Win Without War, MoveOn, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “By launching a war against Iran, Trump has violated the Constitution, defied international law, flouted the will of the American people, and has put millions of lives across the region at risk. A vote for President Trump’s Pentagon supplemental funding package would be a vote to commit the U.S. even further to this crisis, which has already killed seven U.S. servicemembers and nearly 2,000 people from across the region, and which endangers the lives of many more,” the letter reads. The Pentagon’s budget now totals more than $1 trillion, after an extra $150 billion the agency received in the GOP’s reconciliation bill. A supplemental worth $50 billion would be enough to restore food assistance for four million Americans, establish universal pre-K education, and pay for the annual construction of more than 100,000 units of housing. The groups maintain that this illegal war with Iran cannot be an excuse to fund more weapons instead of priorities here at home. Other prominent signatories to the letter include Oxfam America, the Service Employees International Union, National Nurses United, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the National Organization for Women, the Union of Concerned Scientists, J Street, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Indivisible, Common Cause, Jewish Voice for Peace, Rising Majority, and Working Families Power. “President Trump’s illegal war has already shown the costs war imposes — American servicemembers killed and injured, thousands of civilians killed in fighting, skyrocketing oil prices, a conflict spiraling over a dozen countries in unexpected ways, and more. That’s exactly why it’s so crucial that the decision to go to war not rest on one person's impulses. Congress must not fund the continuation of this unconstitutional war,” said Christopher Anders, director of ACLU’s Technology and Democracy Division. “More money for the Pentagon will serve to extend and escalate an illegal, unpopular, and devastating war – as well as pave the way for still more Pentagon funding requests,” said Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen. “The money wasted on this war should instead be invested in meeting the economic squeeze felt by everyday Americans. The $11.3 billion spent on the first six days of the war would, for example, be enough to restore food benefits to the four million people losing them due to the tax and budget reconciliation bill.” “Every penny wasted on bombing children and families in Iran would be better spent on health care and affordable housing in America. Secretary Hegseth and President Trump are ready to spend trillions on another forever war that nobody asked for, but they won't lift a finger to lower costs here at home,” said Sara Haghdoosti, chief of program for MoveOn Civic Action. “A vote for supplemental spending is a vote to continue the war in Iran, and Congress must listen to the vast majority of Americans and stop the reckless spending and bloodshed.” “People across the U.S. already hate Trump’s illegal war in Iran, and they’re not going to like it any better if Congress wastes $50 billion more of their money on it,” said Shayna Lewis, deputy director of Win Without War. “It’s outrageous that Trump is even asking for more money to spend on bombs when his spiraling war is killing civilians abroad and driving up prices for everyone at home, all with no end in sight. Congress should tell Trump clearly: not one more penny for this foolish, destructive war.”
More Than 250 Groups Oppose Additional Spending On Trump’s Illegal Iran War. Explore Press Release.