User 3

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?

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?

The lawyers for TikTok and the creators brought up significant First Amendment questions that really, I think, touched at this court's vigilant defense of free speech in most contexts and its great skepticism of government actions that appear to restrict speech. So those, I think, were effective and the court would not be cavalier in its approach to resolving them.

The lawyers for TikTok and the creators brought up significant First Amendment questions that really, I think, touched at this court's vigilant defense of free speech in most contexts and its great skepticism of government actions that appear to restrict speech. So those, I think, were effective and the court would not be cavalier in its approach to resolving them.

The lawyers for TikTok and the creators brought up significant First Amendment questions that really, I think, touched at this court's vigilant defense of free speech in most contexts and its great skepticism of government actions that appear to restrict speech. So those, I think, were effective and the court would not be cavalier in its approach to resolving them.

But they had a much, much harder time dealing with the data collection issue.

But they had a much, much harder time dealing with the data collection issue.

But they had a much, much harder time dealing with the data collection issue.

The justices pushed very hard on the free speech question, and they raised a number of precedents and practices from the past which have seen the Supreme Court refuse to endorse restrictions on what Americans can say or listen to, even when they were connected to foreign adversary governments.

The justices pushed very hard on the free speech question, and they raised a number of precedents and practices from the past which have seen the Supreme Court refuse to endorse restrictions on what Americans can say or listen to, even when they were connected to foreign adversary governments.

The justices pushed very hard on the free speech question, and they raised a number of precedents and practices from the past which have seen the Supreme Court refuse to endorse restrictions on what Americans can say or listen to, even when they were connected to foreign adversary governments.

So Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar had some trouble pushing that line of argument that this really was about ownership rather than content. But she was on stronger ground and got a much more receptive audience on the intelligence dossier angle. The idea that this app sitting on millions of cell phones was busily collecting information for Chinese intelligence that could be

So Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar had some trouble pushing that line of argument that this really was about ownership rather than content. But she was on stronger ground and got a much more receptive audience on the intelligence dossier angle. The idea that this app sitting on millions of cell phones was busily collecting information for Chinese intelligence that could be

So Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar had some trouble pushing that line of argument that this really was about ownership rather than content. But she was on stronger ground and got a much more receptive audience on the intelligence dossier angle. The idea that this app sitting on millions of cell phones was busily collecting information for Chinese intelligence that could be

exploited in years or decades in the future, that is something that the justices seem to believe was a very legitimate national security concern. And the question being, is this law sufficiently respectful of free speech rights to allow it to go into effect?

exploited in years or decades in the future, that is something that the justices seem to believe was a very legitimate national security concern. And the question being, is this law sufficiently respectful of free speech rights to allow it to go into effect?

exploited in years or decades in the future, that is something that the justices seem to believe was a very legitimate national security concern. And the question being, is this law sufficiently respectful of free speech rights to allow it to go into effect?

It seems to me that the court does not want to second guess national security concerns that have such widespread support in Washington. The bill that President Biden signed was passed by large bipartisan majorities of Congress after the lawmakers got briefings from intelligence agencies.

It seems to me that the court does not want to second guess national security concerns that have such widespread support in Washington. The bill that President Biden signed was passed by large bipartisan majorities of Congress after the lawmakers got briefings from intelligence agencies.

It seems to me that the court does not want to second guess national security concerns that have such widespread support in Washington. The bill that President Biden signed was passed by large bipartisan majorities of Congress after the lawmakers got briefings from intelligence agencies.