Rand Paul Reacts to TikTok Ruling: 'Violation of the First Amendment'

Newsweek ^ | Jan 17, 2025 | Sonam Sheth

[Mr. Mojo]

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul ripped the Supreme Court on Friday after it unanimously upheld a federal law requiring TikTok's parent company to sell its United States operations by January 19 or face a nationwide ban.

Paul said he was disappointed in the ruling, adding, "I do believe that banning a social media app like TikTok is a violation of the First Amendment."

Congress passed the law with broad bipartisan support last year after lawmakers argued that TikTok's ties to China represented a significant national security risk.

The Supreme Court's nine justices sided with Congress on Friday, saying in an unsigned majority opinion, "Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address well-founded national security concerns about TikTok's data collection practices and its relationship with a foreign adversary."

Paul has vocally opposed the TikTok ban, arguing that it infringes on free speech, and he was one of several lawmakers who submitted a bipartisan amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to reverse a lower-court ruling upholding the ban.

"I haven't had a chance to read the ruling yet, but very disappointed," he told reporters on Friday. "170 million Americans express themselves on TikTok on a daily basis, and it's just wrong for the government to ban it."

He said the national security and data privacy risks Congress cited "were based on accusations, not proof."

[MinorityRepublican]

But the Chi-Coms own TikTok so let’s give the Feds the power to ban any app/website they want as long as they yell “China” or “Russia”.

[Chengdu54]

Rand Paul is right. We need more senators like him.

[RoosterRedux]

The TikTok debate underscores a nuanced conflict between protecting free speech and addressing national security risks, but Rand Paul oversimplifies the issue by framing it purely as a First Amendment violation.

While he highlights the millions of Americans using TikTok to express themselves, he downplays the legitimate concerns about how a foreign adversary, like China, might exploit the platform for data collection or influence operations.

Paul’s focus on free speech neglects the complexity of balancing individual rights with safeguarding against foreign interference. Proposals to store U.S. data domestically or create an American oversight structure illustrate potential compromises, but his arguments overlook these middle-ground solutions and the broader implications of allowing a foreign entity access to sensitive information.

[Erik Latranyi]

It should be banned on any gov’t phone and the private phone of government employees.

The Us should encourage companies to prohibit it as well, but never have the power to ban it for everyone

[MNJohnnie]

Not according to the Supreme Court, and like it or not, their ruling matters

[JesusIsLord]

He said the national security and data privacy risks Congress cited "were based on accusations, not proof."

Anyone, particularly in government, who does not recognize China (CCP) as our #1 economic and military threat is stupid, ignorant or treasonous. We need to do to the CCP what Reagan did to the USSR. I.e., put communism out of business. Preventing a communist regime from collecting unfiltered information from and about U.S. citizens should be a no-brainer. Rand Paul should know this.

[MinorityRepublican]

It should be banned on any gov’t phone and the private phone of government employees.

And that should be about it.

[Brian Griffin]

Tell us how to make your product if you want to sell it in China.

It’s rather late to close the barn door.

[Responsibility2nd]

But the Chi-Coms own TikTok.....

___________________________

Actually they don’t.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/how-much-of-tiktok-is-owned-by-YuqiA832T_WNUBZyOtUuzQ

[Secret Agent Man]

Its not a constitutional violation.

Tiktok is an app the chinese govt uses to spy on people under the guise of a legitimate application. The app has been found accessing information on peoples devices that were not specified in the user agreements.

[Right_Wing_Madman]

The TikTok debate underscores a nuanced conflict between protecting free speech and addressing national security risks

Please show me in the US constitution how the bill of rights may be excluded or suspended in the interests of "national security." Article and section would be helpful.

[MinorityRepublican]

Give someone an inch and they’ll take a mile.

[Responsibility2nd]

I’m actually OK with banning a China based social media app.

We should leave the spying done to US based social media apps.

/sarc or no sarc. Can’t decide.

[alternatives?]

What is to keep China from selling it to someone in a sham sale? The buyer takes 10% but does everything the Chinese want. If they don’t, they have an accident.

[ncalburt]

Chichoms money got to him .
Not shocked ..

[larrytown]

This.

[Openurmind]

I get your argument. But what makes this different is that China can get any information they want from a million other domain and app sources. Congress absolutely does know this, they knew this before they even drafted it. So the intentions of this bill are not to prevent China from getting data. The true intentions are to incrementally implement more government control over the internet.

If China can just get the same data somewhere else then it is not actually a matter of National Security, the whole internet selling our private data is. If it is intended to implement more government control then it is absolutely a 1st amendment matter for sure.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Show me where in the Constitution it says I can’t yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater?

[metmom]

If it were a matter of free speech, Rand Paul would be correct.

Since it seems that it’s more of a national security issue, I’ll go with banning it.