Brief Of Amici Curiae Foundation For Individual Rights And Expression, Institute For Justice, Reason Foundation, Future Of Free Speech, Woodhull Freedom Foundation, First Amendment Lawyers Association, Stop Child Predators, Pelican Institute For Public Policy, and CJ Pearson In Support Of Petitioners
Woodhull Freedom Foundation opposes the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which effectively bans TikTok in the United States. We joined our allies Foundation For Individual Rights And Expression, Institute For Justice, Reason Foundation, Future Of Free Speech, First Amendment Lawyers Association, Stop Child Predators, Pelican Institute For Public Policy, and CJ Pearson in filing an Amicus Brief in TikTok v. Garland. The Supreme Court will hear the case on January 10, 2025. The brief argues that this law represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional restriction on free speech, marking the first time in U.S. history that the government has attempted to prohibit an entire medium of communication.
The brief contends that the Act imposes a prior restraint on speech and discriminates based on content and viewpoint, subjecting it to the highest level of First Amendment scrutiny. The amici argue that Congress has not met the heavy burden required to justify such a sweeping ban, relying instead on speculative national security concerns without providing concrete evidence of harm or demonstrating that less restrictive alternatives would be inadequate.
The brief criticizes the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision to uphold the Act, arguing that the court was too deferential to the government’s unsupported assertions and failed to properly apply strict scrutiny. The amici warn that allowing this ban to stand would not only infringe on the rights of 170 million Americans who use TikTok but also set a dangerous precedent for future regulation of online platforms based on vague national security claims.
At Woodhull, we oppose the law due to its potential impact on free expression, particularly in relation to human sexuality. As an organization dedicated to advancing sexual freedom and gender equality, Woodhull is especially concerned about government censorship of speech involving these topics. We see the TikTok ban as a threat to open discourse on sexual and gender-related issues, which are often subject to excessive content moderation and censorship.
The brief highlights the significant human rights implications of the case, emphasizing that the Act undermines core First Amendment principles of free speech and the right to receive information, even from foreign sources. By banning TikTok, the government is not only limiting Americans’ ability to express themselves but also restricting their access to a diverse range of ideas and perspectives from around the world.
The amici argue that the Act’s sweeping censorship betrays fundamental First Amendment values and aligns the United States more closely with authoritarian regimes that stifle free expression. They warn that this approach weakens America’s moral authority in advocating for speech and press freedoms globally. Instead of banning platforms, the brief suggests that the government should rely on robust counterspeech and public debate to address concerns about foreign influence, following the example of democracies like Taiwan that have chosen to combat disinformation through education and transparency rather than censorship.