User 3

They were skeptical. They seemed to look at the government's solution, that being divestiture, as being not particularly novel. Divesting assets is a very typical way that the government achieves certain goals. So I would say that he ran into some trouble in arguing that TikTok USA was really so different from ByteDance in Beijing. Yeah, he had a pretty tough row to hoe there.

Another question that the court really grappled with was whose speech and what is the speech that is at issue in this case? For example, there is not a restriction on what Americans are saying or can say on this platform. And what seems to be the speech is the confidential algorithm that ByteDance uses to serve up videos to TikTok users. users. And so what is that algorithm and how is it speech?

Another question that the court really grappled with was whose speech and what is the speech that is at issue in this case? For example, there is not a restriction on what Americans are saying or can say on this platform. And what seems to be the speech is the confidential algorithm that ByteDance uses to serve up videos to TikTok users. users. And so what is that algorithm and how is it speech?

Another question that the court really grappled with was whose speech and what is the speech that is at issue in this case? For example, there is not a restriction on what Americans are saying or can say on this platform. And what seems to be the speech is the confidential algorithm that ByteDance uses to serve up videos to TikTok users. users. And so what is that algorithm and how is it speech?

And the analogy that the TikTok side gave was, well, try to think of it as like, you know, several floors in a magazine or newspaper offices where you have a collection of brilliant editors who are choosing the content that the publication will have that is just so unique and so well edited and selected that people will want to use it.

And the analogy that the TikTok side gave was, well, try to think of it as like, you know, several floors in a magazine or newspaper offices where you have a collection of brilliant editors who are choosing the content that the publication will have that is just so unique and so well edited and selected that people will want to use it.

And the analogy that the TikTok side gave was, well, try to think of it as like, you know, several floors in a magazine or newspaper offices where you have a collection of brilliant editors who are choosing the content that the publication will have that is just so unique and so well edited and selected that people will want to use it.

And so that itself is a form of expression, a form of speech, and that is what is at issue here. And that if TikTok were severed from ByteDance, it could no longer use that confidential algorithm, and the nature of the app and the nature of what people can see will change.

And so that itself is a form of expression, a form of speech, and that is what is at issue here. And that if TikTok were severed from ByteDance, it could no longer use that confidential algorithm, and the nature of the app and the nature of what people can see will change.

And so that itself is a form of expression, a form of speech, and that is what is at issue here. And that if TikTok were severed from ByteDance, it could no longer use that confidential algorithm, and the nature of the app and the nature of what people can see will change.

And I guess my question is, how are those First Amendment rights really being implicated here? This statute says the foreign company has to divest. Whether or not that's feasible, however long it takes, TikTok still has the ability to use whatever algorithm it wants, doesn't it? No, Your Honor.

And I guess my question is, how are those First Amendment rights really being implicated here? This statute says the foreign company has to divest. Whether or not that's feasible, however long it takes, TikTok still has the ability to use whatever algorithm it wants, doesn't it? No, Your Honor.

And I guess my question is, how are those First Amendment rights really being implicated here? This statute says the foreign company has to divest. Whether or not that's feasible, however long it takes, TikTok still has the ability to use whatever algorithm it wants, doesn't it? No, Your Honor.

Jeffrey Fisher had a somewhat easier way with the court because he was really representing people who are Americans, and there's no dispute that Americans have First Amendment rights, and suppressing their ability to say things or hear things does run into constitutional problems. The question, though, was were his clients really the ones whose speech was being affected?

Jeffrey Fisher had a somewhat easier way with the court because he was really representing people who are Americans, and there's no dispute that Americans have First Amendment rights, and suppressing their ability to say things or hear things does run into constitutional problems. The question, though, was were his clients really the ones whose speech was being affected?

Jeffrey Fisher had a somewhat easier way with the court because he was really representing people who are Americans, and there's no dispute that Americans have First Amendment rights, and suppressing their ability to say things or hear things does run into constitutional problems. The question, though, was were his clients really the ones whose speech was being affected?

And a number of justices said, well, you know, if this is ByteDance's speech through its algorithm— a foreign adversary doesn't have any First Amendment rights in the United States, the fact that there are some collateral consequences that some third parties, their interests are also harmed, well, that's just kind of the way it goes.

And a number of justices said, well, you know, if this is ByteDance's speech through its algorithm— a foreign adversary doesn't have any First Amendment rights in the United States, the fact that there are some collateral consequences that some third parties, their interests are also harmed, well, that's just kind of the way it goes.

And a number of justices said, well, you know, if this is ByteDance's speech through its algorithm— a foreign adversary doesn't have any First Amendment rights in the United States, the fact that there are some collateral consequences that some third parties, their interests are also harmed, well, that's just kind of the way it goes.

I mean, that happens with all kinds of legal decisions and divestitures and what have you when, you know, ownership changes. And so, you know, how much attention should the court have to pay to the impact on these third parties?