If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, has today filed a motion in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, seeking an injunction to block the enforcement of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. The companies argue that the legislation, which effectively bans TikTok in the US, violates constitutional protections, including the First Amendment, and constitutes a “bill of attainder” that unfairly targets them. (A bill of attainder is a legislative act that declares a person or group guilty of a crime and imposes punishment without a judicial trial, which is prohibited by the US Constitution.) We obtained a copy of the motion for you here. TikTok, a platform used by 170 million Americans, claims the law singles out their platform for alleged risks without clear evidence, relying instead on speculative threats and post hoc government justifications. Key Arguments: First Amendment Violation: TikTok contends that the law imposes the “most sweeping speech restriction in this country’s history” by banning a platform where millions of Americans share content. The company emphasizes that courts must rigorously scrutinize government restrictions on speech, even when national security is invoked. Lack of Evidence: The motion highlights that the US government has admitted it has no evidence of China manipulating TikTok’s content or accessing sensitive US user data. TikTok states that its US operations, including its recommendation algorithm and user data, are securely housed in Oracle’s US-based cloud. Under inclusive Legislation: The petitioners argue the law arbitrarily exempts other foreign-controlled applications, raising doubts about its true intent. They allege the Act is crafted solely to ban TikTok while leaving similar platforms unaffected. Unconstitutional Punishment: ByteDance asserts the law amounts to a legislative punishment—a bill of attainder—specifically targeting them without due process. The US government, represented by Attorney General Merrick Garland, defends the law as necessary to safeguard national security. Officials argue that TikTok’s ownership by ByteDance, a Chinese company, creates vulnerabilities that could be exploited by the Chinese government. They cite the risk of covert content manipulation and data collection as justifications for the legislation. TikTok’s legal team described the law as “the most sweeping speech restriction in this country’s history,” alleging that it unfairly targets the app and its 170 million US users without justification. In their motion, TikTok argued that “even in matters of national security, courts must rigorously scrutinize government restraints on speech to ensure protection of First Amendment rights.” The company dismissed the US government’s claims of potential threats as speculative, stating, “The government repeatedly admits it has no evidence that China ever manipulated the content Americans see on TikTok.” They further emphasized, “Courts do not uphold content-based speech restrictions without ‘hard evidence.’” TikTok also challenged the government’s portrayal of its recommendation algorithm and data storage practices. “Unrebutted evidence establishes that ‘TikTok’s US recommendation engine is stored in the Oracle cloud in the United States,’” the motion reads. The company claimed its robust security measures make manipulation or unauthorized access impossible, noting, “Petitioners take robust measures to prevent manipulation.” Critics of the legislation also highlighted its selective enforcement. TikTok’s attorneys argued, “The Act is so ‘wildly underinclusive’ as to ‘raise…serious doubts’ that data collection was Congress’s real concern.” They alleged that the law “purpose-built” a framework to ban TikTok while exempting other platforms with similar risks, calling the legislation “a veneer of general applicability” aimed squarely at shutting down TikTok. The motion underscored the broader constitutional stakes, asserting, “A law designed and intended to suppress or restrict the expression of specific speakers contradicts basic First Amendment principles.” They warned that the Act “singles out one company for a ban—exactly the sort of legislative punishment the Constitution forbids.” In addition to raising First Amendment concerns, TikTok’s legal team pointed to what they called the government’s disregard for less intrusive alternatives. They argued, “Congress could have fully addressed [content manipulation] concerns by requiring disclosure of the US government’s view of that risk, akin to a Surgeon General’s Warning,” rather than implementing a complete ban. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post TikTok Fights Back, Claims Ban Violates Free Speech and Due Process appeared first on Reclaim The Net.