The company was accused of illegally reducing the tax it paid on executive paid by awarding executives 'off-the-books' benefits such as boats and luxury cars in what prosecutors described as a multi-decade scheme. A New York jury found the Trump Organissation guilty of all 17 charges on 6 December.

"The foremr president's companies now stand convicted of crimes," Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg said in a statement to the media after the verdict was delivered. "That is consequential. It underscores that in Manhattan we have a standard of justice for all."

The conviction marks a victory for Manhattan prosecutors in the only extant criminal case against the Trump Organisation and marks the latest in a string of recent defeats for the former president, with the Supreme Court having recently ordered that his tax returns be handed over to a congressional committee.

New York attorney general Letitia James, whose office assisted the district attorney's case, also lauded the result. "This verdict sends a clear message that no one, and no organisation, is above our laws," she said.

New York attorney general Letitia James has filed a lawsuit against Donald Trump and three of his children to prevent them from doing business in the state, alleging “years of bank, tax and insurance fraud”.

The 220-page civil suit, filed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, details allegations that the Trumps lied about the value of their real estate assets “by billions of dollars” in order to inflate their personal net worth. Through this fraud, Trump was able to secure favourable loans and, in cases where he undervalued his property, tax benefits.

Trump, Donald Jr, Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump were each named as defendants, along with Trump Organisation executives Allen Weisselberg and Jeffrey McConney. On top of an order preventing the Trump family from leading any company or purchasing any property in New York, the lawsuit also seeks a $250 million judgement.

James stated in a social media post that the suit alleged more than 200 cases of fraud over a period of 10 years. If enacted, she said, the penalties called for in the suit would be a “death penalty” for the Trump Organisation.

The Trump Organisation denied any wrongdoing. In a social media post, Trump described the legal action as “another witch-hunt”.

[ymal]

The news comes on the heels of further legal troubles for the former president as a three-judge appeals panel ruled that the criminal investigation into classified documents seized from his Mar-a-Lago estate could proceed.

Cannon, a Trump appointee, also rejected the Justice Department's request that federal prosecutors be allowed to continue their review of government records that were recovered from former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate on Palm Beach, Florida, on 8 August. Multiple of these records were marked 'classified'.

In her ruling, Cannon rejected the DoJ's argument that the documents they are working to review as part of their investigation remain highly classified or contain extremely sensitive information that could be damaging to national security interests if released.

However, in appointing Dearie to lead an independent review of the seized material, Cannon instructed him to prioritise "review of the approximately 100 documents marked as classified (and papers physically attached thereto),”  Dearie was one of two potential special masters proposed by Trump's legal team, and prosecutors confirmed that they found him acceptable despite not being one of their initial picks.

Cannon set a 30 November deadline for completion of the investigation, more than a month after the 17 October deadline requested by the DoJ. This will also likely extend the investigation until well after the November midterm elections.

[ymal]

Last week, the DoJ appealed Cannon's order to appoint a special master following the Trump team's request. The DoJ indicated that, should Cannon not agree to delay aspects of her ruling by Thursday night, it would seek relief with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The former president filed a request for a preliminary injunction against the social media giant in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. He argued that Twitter was “coerced” by members of the US Congress to suspend his account. 

In January, Twitter and several other social media giants removed Trump from their platforms following the Capitol riots which led to the death of five people. The attack by Trump’s supporters was followed up by a speech by the former president in which he reiterated false claims that his election loss in November was caused by widespread fraud.  

At the time of removing Trump’s account, Twitter said his tweets had violated its policy barring the "glorification of violence" and were “highly likely” to encourage people to replicate what had happened in the Capitol riots. 

Before his account was suspended, Trump had over 88 million followers on Twitter.

With a mob of enthusiastic Trump supporters storming the U.S Capitol on 6 January resulting in us waving goodbye to Trump, not only from his position as President, but also his seat as ringleader of the supremacists and the mighty devoted Republicans on social media. What could potentially be the only repercussion Trump will face for his reign fuelled by demagoguery, his banishment from Facebook was followed by Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Twitch, Discord and YouTube, to name a few, silencing the ex-president. Whether the consequences of Trump’s actions will lead to his conviction is another story that we will find the ending out to in time, but for the time being, the current tranquillity and silent relief across social feeds surfaces another issue which may not be as loud as inciting violence across the constitution, yet remains to have the same potential to impede democracy.

A Partisan Battle

Naturally, the internet’s infrastructure should remain neutral. Twitter’s founder Jack Dorsey being an on-record donor to Democratic Party candidates, has previously stated that political ideology does not influence how Twitter determines what is and is not appropriate behaviour on the platform[1]. Yet legally, private companies can enforce decisions such as banning influential figures as they please, even if they do risk falling into a partisan battle when making such bold decisions. Dorsey himself stated banning Trump sets a precedent he feels is dangerous: “the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation".

In a series of tweets, the CEO said he feels “a ban is a failure of ours ultimately to promote healthy conversation", adding: "Having to take these actions fragment the public conversation. They divide us." And he is right. When there is no clear test to when speech should be banned, we fall at risk of being fed limited information, thoughts and propaganda. This lack of transparency, however, can lead us to fall victim of being muted ourselves. With no accountable executives in place to enforce congruous, uniform censorship on speech which has the capacity of inciting violence and hate, the tables could easily turn. As Democrats rejoiced over a partial cure of Trump’s verbal diarrhoea, there is nothing preventing them from being silenced tomorrow.

The Threat on Freedom of Speech

Angela Merkel expressed her distaste towards the Trump ban, stating private firms should not be determining speech rules. But then, who should it be? The government? If social media platforms had to adhere to laws on a country by country basis, regulation will reflect that jurisdiction’s position on hate speech and political dogma, somewhat lessening the impact of censorship on a global scale. However, the issue of freedom of speech arises – and, we question how much control can be implicated at a state by state level in an ever expanding globalised world.

That is not the main issue at hand here, however. Republicans in the past have argued that Facebook and Google are monopolies that seek to restrict conservative speech. In contrast, the left have previously complained that large social media platforms fostered Trump’s election in 2016. But what both sides can agree on, is that the government should actively regulate the moderation of social media platforms to attain fairness, balance, or other values[2]. But regulating companies in such a way can pose the risk of indirectly restricting individual speech or limiting a right to curate an internet platform and American law and culture, especially, restricts the government’s power to regulate speech (on the internet or otherwise) as reflected in the First Amendment. However, speech on social media directly tied to violence may be regulated by the government – anything else may be labelled as unconstitutional.

It seems like catch-22. Governmental control over social media proves risky, yet leaving it up to the companies themselves to enforce control on a case-by-case basis, clearly has its flaws.

Leaving it up to the individual companies still surfaces the issue of freedom of speech for users. With bigtech having millions of users that have become accustomed to their platforms to the point it is a major part of their daily routine, social media has almost become a public space, which, therefore, one would believe, should be held to the same speech protective standards. “The First Amendment constrains government power, so when private, non-governmental actors take steps to censor speech, those actions are not subject to constitutional constraints,” Andrew Geronimo, Director of the First Amendment Clinic at Case Western Reserve law school, told the Vox. So where bureaucratic control over these platforms unveils a more dictatorial government, it currently remains that private companies have the right to de-platform users, even if they have the obligation in terms of public accountability like any other business.

As Suzanne Nossell, CEO of Pen America stated when peaking to the Guardian: “While I believe the government should not be legislating what can and can’t be published on a platform like Twitter, we need far more robust protections for the public in terms of transparency: how these decisions are made, what the rules are, what the basis of adjudication is in an individual instance.”

It seems like catch-22. Governmental control over social media proves risky, yet leaving it up to the companies themselves to enforce control on a case-by-case basis, clearly has its flaws. Maybe we need a better balance of both to control the tech oligopolies with stronger governmental guidance. Perhaps users need to be more conscious and willing to accept that companies like Twitter and Facebook have a similar agenda: stopping the spread of fake news, hate speech and propaganda, because, as we have all witnessed, it leads to irreversible, catastrophic events.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/08/19/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-admits-left-leaning-bias-says-it-doesnt-influence-company-policy/

[2] https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/why-government-should-not-regulate-content-moderation-social-media

Brexit

A word that will trigger us all: for either good or bad reasons. After four years, the UK finally left the EU and by the end of 2020, the transition period ended and Britain went its own way. But what does this mean?

On December 24th the sides agreed on a trade deal, which will inevitably leave doing business with EU states a little tougher than before. Work visas will be required for those delivering a service (auditing accounts, performing concerts or working as a chef, for example), and those staying for business for longer than 90 days. There will no longer be automatic recognition of professional qualifications - people will need to check each country's rules to make sure their qualifications are still recognised. With each country having its own rules and regulations, things may become tricky. Whilst some (including myself) may mourn over the death of free roaming in EU countries, businesses have bigger problems at hand, one of them being: more paperwork. Even though it has been agreed that there will be no taxes on each other's goods when they cross the UK and EU borders and no limits on the amount of things that can be traded, traders in England, Wales and Scotland will now have to make customs declarations (similar to when dealing with countries elsewhere in the world). Some products, including plants, live animals and some foods, will also now need special licences and certificates. Other products will have to be labelled in specific ways, requiring businesses to be more diligent when trading.

Will the UK become a laughing stock based on the Prime Ministers handling of COVID, or will Britain’s economy eventually flourish with these new trade (and other) regulations? Only time will tell. 

 

Brexit will bring forth many changes, but one of the selling points for Britain’s divorce from the EU was due to wanting more power and freedom to allow the UK to steer the ship in the direction it wanted to go in. So, even though trade with the EU will become trickier, the UK is free to negotiate its own trade deals with other countries, like the US.

Despite the changes many aren’t fond of and will see as an inconvenience, independent Britain also has a lot going for it, bringing a little light into the mysterious tunnel of unknown circumstances. The UK’s membership of nato, the G7, the G20, the Commonwealth, and UN Security Council all bring influence. The country now has more freedom to try to sway the world in ways that suit British interests, whether on trade, climate change or democracy and only time will tell if Boris’ reign as Prime Minister will influence the world; will the UK become a laughing stock based on the Prime Ministers handling of COVID, or will Britain’s economy eventually flourish with these new trade (and other) regulations? Only time will tell. 

U.S. Presidential Transition

A good chunk of the world let out a deep sigh of relief when Joe Biden won the US presidential election. It was a long battle, with Trump crying ‘fraud’ and ‘stop the count’, but results - after recounts - eventually showed Biden will be the next President of the United States. What does this mean for the U.S and the world? 

With the U.S. nation becoming more polarised and divided when addressing race, equality and trust in authorities (reminder: ‘fake news’), Biden has quite a challenge of cleaning up Trump’s mess.

On the other side of the coin from Trump’s ‘America First’ stance, Biden has a more traditional take on America's role and interests; a stance that has been grounded in international institutions established after World War Two, and based on shared western democratic values. Changes could possibly include: returning to the World Health Organisation, thus changing response towards COVID; rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement and making climate change a priority by promoting an ambitious $2 trillion dollar plan to achieve goals for cutting emissions; reconciling relations with Iran and rejoin the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) - a plan which Trump called the “worst deal ever”, consequently pulling America out of it in 2018 imposing various sanctions on Iran. If Iran returns to compliance, Biden will lift the sanctions, which Javad Zarif, Iran’s Foreign Minister supported, with: “We too can immediately return to our full commitments in the accord.”.

With the U.S. nation becoming more polarised and divided when addressing race, equality and trust in authorities (reminder: ‘fake news’), Biden has quite a challenge of cleaning up Trump’s mess. Trump has, as succinctly said on The Economist, “compared intelligence agencies to Nazis, rubbished intelligence that displeased him and replaced professionals with unqualified sycophants” and Biden will now have to not only clean up Trump’s damage but also reform national intelligence by ensuring the directors of national intelligence actually have the relevant experience to advise their country’s leader.

In general, Biden is more receptive to issues that U.S citizens are concerned about: from his "build back" programme which will create business support for minorities through a $30bn investment fund to tackle institutionalised racism, to repairing broken relationships with US allies and promising to reverse Trump policies that separate parents from their children at the US-Mexican border. Such changes may not be easy, however, with the potential of Biden facing opposition due to some being quite sceptical about his plans, but we can hope big reforms will happen.

Our changes in response towards technology will influence the regulations at hand.

Cyber Space & Tech Power

I could take this time to discuss the impact of COVID and the economy, but we are all most likely aware. From remote working to crashing markets, we all lived through the pandemic together and are conscious of the impact it has had, especially in relation to technology advancement. The past year has accelerated the adoption of many technological behaviours, from Zoom meetings to increased online shopping causing the demise of the once loved high street, causing tech usage to accelerate more than predicted. Things may return to the old ‘normal’ for some once the pandemic is more under control, but it is safe to say tech has been happily embraced and will remain to be a big part of businesses and everyday life in the years ahead. And I am not just talking about connecting to Teams to keep your company up to date - that comes with risks and perhaps more needs to be done to curtail the average hacker attacking the average company. But, as the world has rapidly increased its tech usage in all areas, from defence to transport, cyber attacks become more of a problem.  In 2011 Leon Panetta, America’s secretary of defence at the time, commented that “the next Pearl Harbour…could very well be a cyber-attack”. Sounds ridiculous almost, especially when she compared it to the likeness of 9/11. But last year we saw a cyber attack that shut down the computers of a hospital in Düsseldorf, which left a woman needing urgent surgery sadly dying after being transferred to another city. Hackers have also repeatedly demonstrated the ability to seize control of cars that have internet connection, leaving its passengers vulnerable. So, it is not hyperbole to say a cyber attack can be deadly. It very well can be. 

Our changes in response towards technology will influence the regulations at hand. On a less murderous scale (I hope), we can look at the reaction towards BigTech. I addressed late last year, on how BigTech is now seen to have too much power, thus causing Lawmakers to analyse and decide how to tackle this, especially for the betterment of BigTech users and other competing, smaller tech companies. With Google promoting Google’s products over others and Facebook purchasing companies they see as competition, we look towards 2021 with curiosity on how Lawmakers may try to take back power or level the playing field, at least. It may take longer than one year, of course, as with anything that has been mentioned in this article, but we can look to hope that some changes that are coming our way will set a more progressive, positive year(s) ahead. Anything will be better than 2020, right? We hope so.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Saturday dismissed a bid from Representative Mike Kelly and other Republicans to halt the certification of the 2020 presidential election results in the state.

Kelly’s case argued that a 2019 law mandating mail-in voting in Pennsylvania was unconstitutional, proposing two solutions: the invalidation of all mail-in ballots cast during the election or allowing the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania general assembly to appoint presidential electors, rather than allocating them according to the popular vote.

The seven-member court agreed unanimously that the suit came too late, having been filed more than a year after the mail-in voting law was enacted. The court also overturned a lower court injunction blocking Pennsylvania from moving ahead with the certification process.

The case’s dismissal marks the latest in a string of legal defeats for Republicans and affiliates of President Donald Trump’s campaign in an ongoing attempt to dispute the legitimacy of the 2020 election results.

In Pennsylvania last week, two Republican suits aimed at halting the certifications of the state’s election results. Stephanos Bibas, a Trump-nominated judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote in a 21-page unanimous decision on Friday that the president’s lawsuit challenging the results had “no merit.”

[ymal]

“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy,” Bibas wrote. “Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”

During a hearing on Thursday, a Georgia federal judge denied on multiple grounds a bid by an Atlanta attorney to halt the certification of Georgia’s general election results before the deadline on Friday.

In the suit, plaintiff L. Lin Wood took aim at Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and members of the Georgia Election Board over a March settlement agreed with the Democratic Party of Georgia to strengthen signature checks on absentee ballots. Wood claimed that this change in procedure was made without due authority and against measures approved by the state’s legislature, and urged a second recount of Georgia’s presidential votes.

Judge Grimberg described Wood’s “eleventh hour” motion for a recount as “a generalised government grievance” which would “breed confusion and potential disenfranchisement”.

"The settlement agreement was consistent with state law … if anything it achieves or seeks to achieve consistency among the county election officials in the state to follow the same procedure,” Grimberg said, “and in doing that it actually furthers plaintiff's stated goals of achieving fair and transparent public elections."

Georgia entered the international spotlight by swinging towards Democratic Party candidate Joe Biden during the US election, a surprise move in a state that has generally been considered a Republican stronghold.

In the aftermath of Election Day, Trump campaign affiliates sued in several key states in an attempt to prematurely halt the counting of ballots. When these states were called for Joe Biden, further lawsuits were issued to prevent the certification of the results, citing claims of widespread voter fraud. Most of these cases have since been dismissed.

[ymal]

Election results in Georgia must be certified by 5pm on 20 November. A recount held in the state recently confirmed Joe Biden’s victory by a margin of 12,284 votes.

President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign filed lawsuits in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia on Wednesday, preparing to contest the voting results in these battleground states.

The campaign has sued in Michigan and Pennsylvania to stop the counting of absentee and mail-in ballots, and in Georgia to prevent the counting of absentee ballots that it claims were received after a deadline set for Election Day.

“President Trump’s campaign has not been provided with meaningful access to numerous counting locations to observe the opening of ballots and the counting process, as guaranteed by Michigan law,” wrote Trump’s campaign manager, Bill Stepien. “We have filed suit today in the Michigan Court of Claims to halt counting until meaningful access has been granted. We also demand to review those ballots which were opened and counted while we did not have meaningful access.”

Ryan Jarvi, press secretary for Attorney General Dana Nessel, dismissed Stepien’s claims. “Michigan’s elections have been conducted transparently, with access provided for both political parties and the public, and using a robust system of checks and balances to ensure that all ballots are counted fairly and accurately,” he said.

The announcement of the Michigan and Pennsylvania lawsuits came shortly before Trump’s Democratic challenger, Joe Biden, became projected to win the vote in Michigan.

This latest development in the US election follows a vow from the incumbent president that he would ask the Supreme Court to end the counting of ballots after Election Day. The Trump campaign has also sought to intervene in a case heard by the Pennsylvania state supreme court regarding the counting of ballots postmarked by Election Day but received by election authorities up to three days later.

Biden campaign manager Jen O’Malley Dillon issued a statement referring to moves to halt the counting of ballots as “outrageous, unprecedented and incorrect.”

[ymal]

“Nearly 100 million people cast their ballot before Election Day in the belief — and with the assurances from their state election officials — that their ballot would be counted,” she said. “Now Donald Trump is trying to invalidate the ballot of every voter who relied on these assurances.”

Dillon added that the Biden campaign has teams of lawyers ready to challenge legal action from the Trump campaign, and that “they will prevail”.

Why TikTok?

On 31st July,  Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that he planned to personally ban the app using his own authority, instead of potentially forcing its Chinese owner to divest it, due to concerns of how much access and influence the Chinese government has over the app's user data and content moderation[1].

Trump had issued executive orders sanctioning TikTok and WeChat (another Chinese social media and messaging app) and banning “transactions” between US entities and the parent companies (ByteDance for TikTok and Tencent for WeChat). Leaving many unanswered questions, Trump poses a threat to the companies and their development.

After declaring this situation as a ‘national emergency’ due to privacy concerns (some would argue it came from a political standpoint, too), Similar to how the administration punished Huawei, Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) at the start of August which requires less proof that ByteDance have done something wrong.

Trump stated that apps developed by Chinese firms "threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States" by capturing “vast swaths of information from its users"; in response, TikTok said it would "pursue all remedies available" to "ensure the rule of law is not discarded". With the US Government stating that the data collection “threatens to allow the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans' personal and proprietary information”, the executive order claims that the apps gather data on Chinese nationals visiting the US, allowing Beijing "to keep tabs" on them.

How do companies get banned?

Company sanctions and bans are usually put in place for trade violations, espionage, or the proliferation of IP theft – not usually because one may be suspicious that a company may be “keeping tabs”.

But some Governments obviously have the power to ban companies; an example: China and Facebook. But what about western governments, which often pride themselves in liberality and freedom for the people? We all know the reaction that occurs when Twitter blocks the President’s tweets. It is a violation of one’s freedom of speech. So, how, or why rather, do companies, especially tech companies, get banned?

Teaching national security law and holding an LLM in National Security & US Foreign Relations Law, Matt C. Pinsker says that normally, the President cannot unilaterally ban a private company, even a foreign-owned one. “The difference here is that in Communist China, unlike most western nations, there is not a clear distinction between privately owned companies and state actors.”

And without this distinction, TikTok (via its owner ByteDance LTD), may be treated as a foreign state actor instead of a privately owned company. As such, just as the President can expel foreign diplomats, it can also expel other foreign actors operating inside the US. “Famously, the US Supreme Court recognised that in foreign affairs, the President has "plenary power" (see Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981). This is especially true when there is a national security issue raised by the foreign power”, explains Matt.

Rather, the concern of these new executive orders is primarily focused around data security and data privacy.

Will TikTok be banned?

Speaking to The Verge, James Lewis, Director of technology policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says putting TikTok on the list would be extreme, unusual, and legally dubious. “You can’t just do it because you’re mad at a company,” says Lewis[2].

But other jurisdictions, such as India, have banned TikTok, again over security concerns. In fact, India has banned over a dozen of Chinese apps, including banning them from app stores, ordering network operators in the country, like Vodafone, to block the app on their wired and wireless internet networks, effectively making it impossible for users to access TikTok even if they have already downloaded the app[3].

Blocking communication between TikTok servers and US users, however, is an unprecedented legal move for the States and with the company being an app and not a traditional ‘product’ or ‘company’, there would be practical restrictions on it being banned, especially if the First Amendment labels the ban as an ‘unconstitutional restriction of speech’.

Speaking to David Reischer, Esq. Attorney & CEO of LegalAdvice.com, he explains how President Trump's recent executive orders which ban TikTok and WeChat from the US market due to alleged "national security concerns" appear broad in their scope, but actually make a lot of sense as the traditional issues associated with national security, such as access to classified information are not in play with these executive orders.

“Rather, the concern of these new executive orders is primarily focused around data security and data privacy. Data security and data privacy are fast becoming important concerns for policymakers in Congress”, says David. There are already other recent laws passed by Congress that are addressing the corporate use of customer data, so these new executive orders are not a surprise, especially for a foreign entity with access to US customer data.

“Trump's executive orders in the context of a general increased protection and oversight of customer data and increased acknowledgement of customer privacy rights make a lot of sense”, he tells us.

With many of Trump’s executive orders being immediately challenged (such as his ‘Muslim ban’) and declared unlawful, it is hard to say if a ban will actually occur. It is difficult to impose a flat “ban” on a free social media app already in use by millions of Americans and CFIUS cannot outright “ban” TikTok. However, in more recent weeks, there have been talks of companies, such as Microsoft and Softbank buying TikTok. This is because the CFIUS can force changes to mitigate data privacy concerns, including restructuring the corporate relationship in order to place TikTok’s US data outside ByteDance’s (China’s) reach.

Speaking to Preethi Sekharan, Partner at Gunster, Member of Globalaw, they discuss how an American President invoking emergency powers against an app is "groundbreaking but not necessarily illegal". The President cites national security concerns as the basis for his executive order. The President’s deadline set before issuance of the report by The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) finding evidence of wrongdoing, could set a financially disastrous precedent for US Software Companies.

"TikTok does have a history of misusing information, including those of minor children. The FCC settled the dispute with TikTok, imposed a huge fine, and extracted a written promise from TikTok never to misuse children’s information again. The FCC is currently investigating whether TikTok breached that agreement.

"The CFIUS investigation has been ongoing for the past year. CFIUS has been investigating concerns of improper data collection and disinformation, and improper ties between BYTEDANCE (TikTok’s parent company) and the Chinese government. Simply put, CFIUS is investigating whether TikTok is being used by Chinese intelligence to intercept Americans’ data for the Chinese Government", explains Preethi.

The President cites national security concerns, but the real issue at play here may be censorship, expands Preethi. Opponents of the President’s action argue that TikTok’s alleged moderation practices constitute actual censorship, something that flies in the face of standard American Journalistic Practices. TikTok is supposed to be a “fun” app, and therefore imposes restrictions that prevent users from sharing politically charged or inflammatory posts. "You’re supposed to lip sync Billy Joel tunes on this app, not bash Presidential candidates. Because it is unclear whether there is an evidentiary basis for the President’s actions, opponents are concerned that a ban like this could set a very dangerous precedent. They warn that if a social network used by millions can be banned by Presidential decree, this could set a disastrous precedent for US software companies", Preethi tells us.

Proponents of the President’s actions argue that TikTok’s alleged modification practices are warranted given TikTok’s purpose, and welcome in light of the inflammatory and dangerous propaganda spreading like wildfire through social media. "They point to the failures of Facebook and Twitter to control the spread of false information.

"The question then becomes whether censorship is appropriate under our current standards and laws. We suspect the report by CFIUS is going to prove critical in this case. Should CFIUS find a nexus between TikTok’s misuse of information and the Chinese Government, the President’s actions will have been warranted and the censorship question could be avoided entirely. If CFIUS finds no nexus between the misuse of information and the Chinese Government, then the question of censorship will likely have to be addressed", concludes Preethi.

As mentioned, the US could force a de-platforming of TikTok from iOS and Android app stores pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the statute that undergirds almost all U.S. sanctions programs, using Executive Order 13873, which authorizes the Commerce Department to block any “acquisition, importation, transfer, installation, dealing in, or use” of information and communications technology and services based on an “unacceptable risk” to US national security.  This won’t stop users who have already downloaded the app from using it, however, but it will prevent the app from being maintained and updated, making it less appealing for current users[4].

The Trump administration could enforce action via legal enforcement, but this will open a door full of lawsuits – which could be on the way, given that TikTok is reportedly seeking to sue[5].

Nonetheless, the above could all be disregarded due to  Trump originally giving ByteDance until mid-September to find a buyer for its US TikTok business; he has since moved the deadline date to 12 November. Even though TikTok announced it will sue the Trump administration to prevent the forced sale, if the company finds a buyer, it could potentially resolve the security issues[6]. However, in recent news, ByteDance has rejected offers from Microsoft, leaving Oracle in the running for the time being. Only time will tell how it will proceed and whether or not a ban will be put in place.

This article was last updated on 14 September 2020. 

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/10/21358505/trump-tiktok-wechat-tencent-bytedance-china-ban-executive-order-legal-sanctions-rules

[2] https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/9/21315983/trump-pompeo-ban-tiktok-bytedance-chinese-social-media-national-security-censorship-methods

[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/10/could-the-us-government-ban-tiktok.html

[4] https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/24/trump-cant-ban-tiktok-free-chinese-apps/

[5] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53660860

[6] https://fortune.com/2020/08/25/tiktok-deal-transform-microsoft/