Ian Millhiser

They're about, is this so important that it warrants the president's personal attention? And I don't know that we want courts getting involved in making those calls. But in this case, this statute says two things have to happen. It's not just that the president has to declare an emergency. It's that there has to actually be an extraordinary and unusual threat.

And so I'm hoping the courts are going to say, look, we can just set aside the question of whether Trump was right to declare an emergency and focus on whether that unusual and extraordinary threat exists.

And so I'm hoping the courts are going to say, look, we can just set aside the question of whether Trump was right to declare an emergency and focus on whether that unusual and extraordinary threat exists.

And so I'm hoping the courts are going to say, look, we can just set aside the question of whether Trump was right to declare an emergency and focus on whether that unusual and extraordinary threat exists.

there is a First Amendment principle that is in conflict with the broader national security principle.

there is a First Amendment principle that is in conflict with the broader national security principle.

there is a First Amendment principle that is in conflict with the broader national security principle.

foreign nationals, companies with significant foreign ownership cannot operate a radio station in the U.S. So it is very, very well established that for certain critical communications infrastructure, the government can say U.S. only. You have to be a U.S. citizen or a U.S. company in order to own and operate this.

foreign nationals, companies with significant foreign ownership cannot operate a radio station in the U.S. So it is very, very well established that for certain critical communications infrastructure, the government can say U.S. only. You have to be a U.S. citizen or a U.S. company in order to own and operate this.

foreign nationals, companies with significant foreign ownership cannot operate a radio station in the U.S. So it is very, very well established that for certain critical communications infrastructure, the government can say U.S. only. You have to be a U.S. citizen or a U.S. company in order to own and operate this.

And all that's happening here is the government is saying we want to apply the same rule that has been applied all along to other forms of communications infrastructure to a social media company, to TikTok.

And all that's happening here is the government is saying we want to apply the same rule that has been applied all along to other forms of communications infrastructure to a social media company, to TikTok.

And all that's happening here is the government is saying we want to apply the same rule that has been applied all along to other forms of communications infrastructure to a social media company, to TikTok.

So what this law does is it says TikTok has to be owned by someone else. It can't be owned by ByteDance, which is a Beijing company, if TikTok wants to continue to operate in the United States. And there's a First Amendment challenge to this. There's actually two separate First Amendment challenges.

So what this law does is it says TikTok has to be owned by someone else. It can't be owned by ByteDance, which is a Beijing company, if TikTok wants to continue to operate in the United States. And there's a First Amendment challenge to this. There's actually two separate First Amendment challenges.

So what this law does is it says TikTok has to be owned by someone else. It can't be owned by ByteDance, which is a Beijing company, if TikTok wants to continue to operate in the United States. And there's a First Amendment challenge to this. There's actually two separate First Amendment challenges.

One is brought by TikTok, and TikTok is saying essentially that they have a First Amendment right to continue to operate regardless of who their owner is. And then there's another challenge brought by TikTok users, influencers, you know, people who just want to be able to use TikTok and to publish on it. And they claim that they have a First Amendment right to continue using this platform.

One is brought by TikTok, and TikTok is saying essentially that they have a First Amendment right to continue to operate regardless of who their owner is. And then there's another challenge brought by TikTok users, influencers, you know, people who just want to be able to use TikTok and to publish on it. And they claim that they have a First Amendment right to continue using this platform.

One is brought by TikTok, and TikTok is saying essentially that they have a First Amendment right to continue to operate regardless of who their owner is. And then there's another challenge brought by TikTok users, influencers, you know, people who just want to be able to use TikTok and to publish on it. And they claim that they have a First Amendment right to continue using this platform.

So there's two conflicting principles here. I mean, normally the government cannot tell media companies who their owner has to be, and for obvious reasons. If the government could do that, they could just make all the newspapers sell themselves to Trump supporters, and then we wouldn't have a free press anymore. We'd just have propaganda. But...