Sarah Kreps

Professor of Government

Sarah Kreps, professor of government and law and director of the Tech Policy Institute, has spoken extensively on a TikTok ban as it relates to national security implications, free speech concerns and more.  

Kreps says: 

“After listening to the oral arguments, I am more convinced that this case will end up in the Supreme Court. The fundamental challenge that emerged is that it is difficult to pinpoint precedent because of how this particular type of technology and ownership arrangement intersects with free speech versus national security.

“We’ve had legislation around foreign ownership of broadcasting licenses, but it was unclear whether or how foreign ownership of a social media platform differed in terms of mechanisms of influence from the logic for why the U.S. would restrict China from owning ABC News, for example. 

“We’ve had cases such as Whitney v. California (1927) limiting free speech when inciting violence but agreement that public discourse should not be restricted unless it presents an imminent danger, but no one could agree on what imminent danger would look like in a context of foreign ownership and control of an algorithm. 

“We’ve had requirements and policy analysis for disclosure on other products (e.g., warnings on cigarette cartons) but no agreement on what disclosure could look like for a social media platform controlled by another government and whether it could actually work in the case of TikTok.

“We’ve had policy debates about foreign entities versus foreign adversaries but no clear-cut answer of what that looks like for a social media company that is controlled by China, which one judge hastened to add is not at war with the U.S. but could be in the future, and how the ambiguity around ‘adversary’ would not end up being a slippery slope to include a broader set of countries and restrictions around speech.

“We’ve had discussions about ‘clear and present danger’ to society and ‘imminent threat of harm’ in the context of other types of media but ambiguity around what that looks like for a social media platform that has 170 million American users but Chinese control over how that content is presented. 

“Overall, the judges sounded more skeptical of the TikTok case but also raised important questions about the First Amendment, foreign influence and standards of scrutiny that I do not think were clearly resolved with today’s exchanges.”

Gautam Hans

Associate Clinical Professor of Law

G.S. Hans, associate director of the First Amendment Clinic and professor at Cornell Law School, analyzes the legal and policy issues implicating technology and civil liberties.

Brooke Erin Duffy

Associate Professor of Communication

Brooke Erin Duffy, associate professor of communication, is an expert on digital labor, media and cultural production and emergent technologies. She can speak to the impact of a ban on content creators.

Duffy says: 

“Digital content creators have long grappled with challenges to their visibility, from algorithms that threaten to ‘hide’ their content to exploitative brands that render their labor invisible. While TikTok creators have been bracing for a ban for years, a handful are joining forces with company representatives to challenge the ‘divest-or-ban’ ruling. This is significant given how often platform representatives and creators seem to be in tension. Today, their interdependence is more evident than ever.”