新闻来源：www.cbsnews.com
原文地址：Legal battle over potential TikTok ban goes before federal appeals court
新闻日期：2024-09-16
美国联邦上诉法院开始了TikTok禁令案的听证会。
TikTok及其母公司字节跳动长期受到美国官员质疑，担心中国能获取用户数据并对美国公民进行监控或影响。今年早些时候，美国国会通过了一项外交援助法案，要求TikTok要么出售、要么从美国应用商店下架。拜登总统在4月份签署了该法案。
5月，TikTok和字节跳动向联邦法院提起诉讼，质疑该法案的合宪性，并请求暂停相关法规的执行。他们称这项法案可能导致TikTok明年年初关闭。考虑到时间线，哥伦比亚特区联邦上诉法院加快了听证会的进程。
周一上午，TikTok代表律师安德鲁·皮克斯（Andrew Pincus）首先进行了陈述。他指出这是美国历史上第一次明确禁止一个特定的美国平台及其1700万用户发表言论，并称政府需证明法律的合宪性。“没有理由说明国会必须像执法机构那样特别针对这些当事人。”皮克斯说。
皮克斯反复强调，司法部未能展示中国随时获取数据的能力，并区分了外资所有权与控制权。他还质疑为何不针对其他外资或中国公司采取更宽松的规管措施，也未回答为何无法通过除出售外的其他方式来调控TikTok。“这不是简单的股份转让问题，实际上是对整个平台的禁令。”皮克斯说道。
代表多位提起诉讼的TikTok用户（其中包括字节跳动）的律师杰弗里·费舍尔（Jeffrey Fisher）则表示，在美国历史上，从来不存在因外国对手传播政治和社会观点而限制言论的问题。他强调，“这条法律直接影响了美国人的表达权，政府的理由无法令人信服。”
代表美国司法部的丹尼尔·廷尼（Daniel Tenny）反驳道，TikTok的应用程序代码是用中文写的，用户信息量巨大，问题在于这些数据对试图渗透美国安全的外国对手来说极其宝贵。他区分了表达与受保护的表达，认为真正被针对的是不受保护的信息。
原文摘要：
Washington — A long-brewing legal standoff over the popular video-sharing app TikTok got underway on Monday, with arguments in the challenge against a possible ban kicking off. TikTok and its parent company ByteDance have been under fire by U.S. officials for years over warnings that China’s government could gain access to users’ data and use it to manipulate or spy on Americans. But a renewed push against the app gained momentum in Congress earlier this year, as lawmakers approved a foreign aid package that included provisions requiring it to be sold or be banned from U.S. app stores. President Biden signed the legislation into law in April, teeing up a countdown for TikTok’s sale.TikTok and ByteDance filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department in May over the law, arguing that it violates First Amendment rights of users, among other claims. With the petition, the parties asked the court to block enforcement of the legislation, which they said would force a shutdown of the app by early next year, arguing that the sale of the app is untenable before then. Given the timeline, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit fast-tracked oral arguments. The parties appeared before a panel of three judges in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Monday, where TikTok sought a preliminary injunction against the law.TikTok has argued that the potential ban would be a “radical departure” from the U.S. supporting an open internet, while setting a “dangerous precedent.” Meanwhile, U.S. lawmakers and security experts stress that the Chinese government could tap TikTok’s trove of personal data from millions of U.S. users.In a July filing, the Justice Department outlined that the concern “is grounded in the actions ByteDance and TikTok have already taken overseas, and in the PRC’s malign activities in the United States that, while not reliant on ByteDance and TikTok to date, demonstrate its capability and intent to engage in malign foreign influence and theft of sensitive data.”The arguments over the law that could ban TikTokOn Monday, TikTok and the Justice Department each had 25 minutes to present their case. Representatives for TikTok presented their arguments first. Attorney Andrew Pincus asserted that for the first time in history, Congress has expressly targeted a specific U.S. speaker, banning its speech — and the speech of 170 million Americans. And he urged that it’s the government’s burden to prove the law’s constitutionality.”No compelling reason justifies Congress acting like an enforcement agency and specifically targeting petitioners,” Pincus said.Pincus repeatedly asserted that the Justice Department has not demonstrated evidence of China’s ability to steal data at will, while working to draw a distinction between foreign ownership and foreign control. He questioned why other foreign-based or China-based companies aren’t being targeted, and why there haven’t been less restrictive attempts to regulate TikTok outside of a possible ban or forced sale.Asked by one of the judges about the possibility of the parent company’s divestment in the app, Pincus argued that not only is it infeasible, but it also puts a burden on TikTok even if “it would be possible.””So this isn’t just about divestiture. It’s really about a ban,” Pincus said. Representing a group of prominent TikTok users who also filed a lawsuit challenging the law, attorney Jeffrey Fisher argued that in American history, the answer has never been suppression of speech, noting that the idea that a foreign adversary might spread its ideas about political and social issues “has never in our history been a basis for suppressing speech in this country.” Fischer argued that the law “directly implicates the First Amendment rights of American speakers to speak,” urging that the Justice Department’s government’s content manipulation rationale is “wholly illegitimate and invalid.” On the other side, attorney Daniel Tenny represented the government. He argued that the bottom line is that the app’s code is written in China, outlining the sheer amount of information gathered about users and saying that the problem arises out of the data being “extremely valuable to a foreign adversary trying to compromise the security of the United States.”Tenny drew a line between expression and protected expression, arguing that what is being targeted is not protected expression.
