Getty ImagesThe future of the divest-or-ban law for TikTok is now in the hands of the US Supreme Court after a three-hour hearing preceded a long deadline for the social media platform.
On Friday, the court's nine judges heard from lawyers representing TikTok, content creators and the US government on whether the law requiring its ban in the US — unless sold by parent company ByteDance — threatens free speech.
Noel Francisco, a former US solicitor general appearing for the platform, stressed that the ban would undermine that constitutional right for some 170 million American users.
A representative of platform creators argued that they should be free to use the publishers of their choice.
But the government urged the justices to uphold the law passed by Congress last year.
It passed legislation against TikTok with support from both the Democratic and Republican parties — a moment that marked the culmination of years of concern about the wildly popular platform, known for its viral videos and appeal among young people.
ByteDance is required to sell TikTok in the US or cease operations on January 19.
On Friday, Justice Department lawyer Elizabeth B. Preloger argued in court that ByteDance's ties to the Chinese government made it a national security risk.
He told the court that Beijing could “weaponize TikTok at any time to harm the United States”.
He later said that a warning on TikTok for users would not be enough to address concerns about its relationship with China and would not adequately address national security concerns.
Towards the end of the hearing, Mr Francisco sought to make the argument that “the government cannot restrict speech to protect us from speech”.
“This law does exactly that from beginning to end.”
But his arguments drew intense scrutiny from the justices, who repeatedly returned to the national security concerns that gave rise to the law in the first place.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed concerns that the US government has raised about the data the app collects on its users and how that data may be used.
He said the risks appeared to be of “huge concern for the future of the country”.
Trump's question
Donald Trump was elected US President in December urged the court to delay its decision It wasn't until he returned to the White House that he was able to find a “political solution” to the problems at hand.
TikTok's lawyer told the court on Friday that, as he sees it, the platform will “go dark” on January 19 without intervention.
Ms Preloger, arguing on behalf of the US Justice Department, said “nothing permanent” had to happen that day and there was still time for the sale.
Forcing the app to go dark could be just the “jerk” for ByteDance to seriously consider a sale, he said.
“It will fundamentally change the landscape in terms of what ByteDance can consider,” he said, likening the situation to a “game of chicken” and one where the US “shouldn't blink first”.
The judges will now consider their decision. A verdict is expected within the next few days.
Hundreds of people braved freezing conditions to attend the hearing in person in Washington DC.
Daniel Ballesteros, a student at UC San Diego, said he had been waiting outside the court since 06:30 local time.
“I think TikTok doesn't deserve to be banned,” he told BBC News.
While admitting to using it “probably too much,” he said he believes the app is an important news source for his generation.
The law passed by Congress does not ban use of the app, but requires tech giants like Apple and Google to stop offering it and block updates, which analysts suggest will kill it over time.
The US argues that TikTok is a “serious” threat because the Chinese government can manipulate what users see to give back user data to its owner, ByteDance, or serve Chinese interests.
TikTok has repeatedly denied any possible influence from the Chinese Communist Party and said the law violated its users' First Amendment rights to freedom.
TikTok is already banned from official devices in many countries, including the UK. It faces a more complete ban in some countries, including India.
Last December The three-judge appellate court's ruling upheld the lawIt noted China's record of acting through non-governmental organizations and said the measure was justified as “part of a broader effort to address national security threats posed by the country”.
Stanford University law professor Jeffrey L. Fisher, who represents manufacturers who have sued the law, told the court on Friday that the country has historically faced “ideological campaigns by foreign adversaries.”
But he said that under the First Amendment, mere ideas do not represent a national security threat.