The 2020 TikTok Debate in Relation to Free Speech

    

    Last fall, the popular social media platform TikTok faced the threat of an attempted ban yet ultimately prevailed due to a successful lawsuit by the app's creators. The commerce department of the previous Trump administration claimed that the app was a threat to national security due to its ties with TikTok's Chinese parent company, ByteDance. However, by citing that a global TikTok shutdown would destroy valuable business partnerships and professional opportunities, the court ultimately ruled in favor of protecting the app.

    In terms of the first amendment, the influencers Doug Marland, Cosette Rinab, and Alec Chambers who brought about the suit exercised their first amendment rights of free speech and press to speak out against the government. The only categories of speech that are not protected in the US include incitement, fraud, defamation, obscenity, fighting words, and threats, and these instances were not relevant to the TikTok case. The freedom of speech clause also does not limit the actions of private businesses such as TikTok. Therefore, it would have been both a constitutional violation and an illegal act of government censorship if the app were to have been destroyed. If people feel censored online, they have the right to speak out against the perceived injustice and file a lawsuit. This case brilliantly illustrates the concept of Individual Self Fulfillment in that these digital creators expressed themselves and defined their success by participating on a platform and partnering with businesses that candidly promote free speech. The millions of TikTok creators and consumers to date discover kindred spirits within an online community of creativity and expression.