Before the ban, the ACLU and a number of other groups wrote a joint letter to the Montana State legislature on Tuesday, arguing that passing the legislation “would trample on Montanans’ constitutional right to freedom of speech.” The letter continued,
“The government cannot impose a total ban on a communications platform like TikTok unless it is necessary to prevent extremely serious, immediate harm to national security. But there’s no public evidence of harm that would meet the high bar set by the U.S. and Montana Constitutions, and a total ban would not be the only option for addressing such harm if it did exist.”
“Only in exceptional circumstances will content-based restrictions be constitutionally permissible under the First Amendment,” Lynn Greenky, First Amendment expert and associate professor at Syracuse University, told CNN. “Certainly, the Montana government has a compelling state interest in protecting the health, welfare, and privacy of its citizens, but the statute is so vague that it is virtually unenforceable. A vague statute is, by definition, not narrowly tailored, and as such it will wither under First Amendment scrutiny.”
By contrast, US Senator Rick Scott (R-Fla.) tweeted in support of the Montana measure. He wrote on Friday, “One state down, forty-nine to go. TikTok is a national security risk, and it must be treated as such. The Biden administration doesn’t have the guts to do anything about it, so I’m leading legislation that will and encourage more states to step up.”
Twitter content
This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.
Scott is one of a number of lawmakers who want the app banned in light of security concerns. As of last month, half of the US states have issued a restriction on the app. Similarly, the Biden administration recently demanded that TikTok be sold or banned in the country.
Kelly Rissman
Source link
