Getty ImagesThe future of TikTok's sell-or-ban law is now in the hands of the US Supreme Court after a three-hour hearing ahead of a looming deadline for the social media platform.
On Friday, the court's nine judges heard from lawyers representing TikTok, content creators and the US government on whether the law requiring its ban in the US – unless it is sold by parent company ByteDance – threatens free speech.
Noel Francisco, a former US solicitor general appearing for the platform, stressed that the ban would undermine this constitutional right for some 170 million US consumers.
A representative of platform creators argued that they should be free to use the publisher of their choice.
But the government urged judges to uphold the law passed by Congress last year.
He passed the anti-TikTok law with support from both the Democratic and Republican parties, a moment that marked the culmination of years of concern about the wildly popular platform, which is known for its viral videos and popularity among young people.
It demands that ByteDance sell TikTok in the US or cease operations on January 19.
On Friday, Justice Department attorney Elizabeth B. Prelogar argued in court that ByteDance's ties to the Chinese government make it a national security risk.
She told the court that Beijing “can weaponize TikTok at any time to harm the United States.”
She later said that a warning posted on TikTok to users would not be enough to address concerns about its ties to China and would not adequately address national security concerns.
Toward the end of the hearing, Mr. Francisco tried to make the argument that “the government can't restrict speech to protect us from speech.”
“That's exactly what this law does from beginning to end.”
But his arguments were scrutinized by the justices, who returned again and again to the national security concerns that led to the law in the first place.
Judge Brett Cavanaugh delved into concerns raised by the US government about the data the app collects about its users and how that data might be used.
The risks involved appear to be “a huge concern for the future of the country”, he said.
The Trump question
In December, US President-elect Donald Trump urged the court to postpone its decision until he returns to the White House to allow him to seek a “political solution” to resolve the issues.
TikTok's lawyer told the court on Friday that he believed the platform would “go dark” on January 19 without intervention.
Ms Prelogar, speaking for the US Justice Department, said “nothing permanent” should happen on that day and there was still time to sell.
Forcing the app to go dark could be just the “shock” ByteDance needs to seriously consider selling, she said.
“This will fundamentally change the landscape in terms of what ByteDance can consider,” she said, comparing the situation to a “game of chicken” and one in which the U.S. should not “blink first.”
The judges will now consider their decision. A ruling is expected in the coming days.
More than a hundred people braved the frigid conditions in Washington to attend the hearing in person.
Danielle Ballesteros, a student at UC San Diego, said she had been waiting outside the court since 6:30 a.m. local time.
“I feel like TikTok doesn't deserve to be banned,” she told BBC News.
Although she admitted she uses it “probably too much,” she said she believes the app is an important source of news for her generation.
The legislation passed by Congress would not ban the app's use, but would require tech giants like Apple and Google to stop offering it and prevent updates, which analysts say will kill it over time.
The US says TikTok is a “serious” threat because the Chinese government can force its owner, ByteDance, to hand over user data or manipulate what it shows users to serve Chinese interests.
TikTok has repeatedly denied any potential influence from the Chinese Communist Party and said the law violates users' First Amendment free speech rights.
TikTok is now banned on government devices in many countries, including the UK. It faces more complete bans in some countries, including India.
Last December, a A three-judge appeals court decision upheld the lawnoting that China operates through private companies and saying the measure is justified as “part of a broader effort to counter a well-founded national security threat posed” by the country.
Jeffrey L. Fisher, a Stanford University law professor representing creators who sued the law, told the court on Friday that the country had in the past faced “ideological campaigns by foreign adversaries.”
But he said that under the First Amendment, ordinary ideas do not pose a threat to national security.