Congressional Committee Threatens To Investigate Any Company Helping TikTok Defend Its Rights

from the what-the-actual-fuck-is-going-on? dept

“Do you now, or have you ever, worked with TikTok to help defend its rights?”

That McCarthyism-esque question is apparently being asked by members of Congress to organizations that have been working with TikTok to defend its Constitutional rights.

Does anyone think it’s right for Congress to threaten to punish organizations from working with TikTok? Does that sound like a First Amendment violation to you? Because it sure does to me.

Over the last year or so, we’ve been hearing a lot of talk out of Congress on two specific issues: the supposed horrors of government officials suppressing speech and, at the same time, the supposed horrors of a successful social media app that has ties to China.

Would it surprise you to find that there are some hypocrites in Congress about all of this? Shocking, I know.

We already highlighted how a bunch of members of Congress both signed an amicus brief in the Murthy case saying that governments should never, ever, interfere with speech and also voted to ban TikTok. But, would those same members of Congress who are so worried about “jawboning” by government officials to suppress speech also then use the power of Congress to silence voices trying to defend TikTok?

Yeah, you know where this is going.

NetChoice has been the main trade group that has been defending against all the terrible laws being thrust upon the internet over the last few years. Often people dismiss NetChoice as “big tech” or “the tech industry,” but in my experience they’ve been solidly standing up for good and important internet speech policies. NetChoice has been structured to be independent of its members (i.e., they get to decide what cases they take on, not their members, which sometimes means their members dislike the causes and cases NetChoice takes on).

On Wednesday of this week, NetChoice’s membership roster looked like this:

Image

I highlighted TikTok in particular, because on Thursday, NetChoice’s membership roster looked like this:

Image

TikTok is missing.

Why? Well, because members of Congress threatened to investigate NetChoice if it didn’t drop TikTok from its roster. Politico had some of this story last night, claiming that there was pressure from Congress to drop TikTok:

“The Select Committee’s brazen efforts to intimidate private organizations for associating with a company with 170 million American users is a clear abuse of power that smacks of McCarthyism,” TikTok spokesperson Alex Haurek said in a statement, referring to the House China panel. “It’s a sad day when Members of Congress single out individual companies without evidence while trampling on constitutional rights and the democratic process,” Haurek added. A spokesperson for NetChoice didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The two people told Daniel that NetChoice faced pressure from the office of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) to dump TikTok. A third person said that while no threat was made, NetChoice was told that the Select Committee on China would be investigating groups associated with TikTok and decided to sever ties as a result.

I’ve heard that the claim there was “no threat” is not accurate. As the rest of that paragraph makes clear, there was very much an implied threat that Congress would investigate organizations working with TikTok to defend its rights. I’m also hearing that others, like PR agencies and lobbying organizations that work with TikTok, are now facing similar threats from Congress.

Indeed, despite the “denial” of any threat, Politico gets the “House Select Committee on the CCP” to admit that it will launch an investigation into any organization that helps TikTok defend its rights:

“Significant bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate deemed TikTok a grave national security threat and the President signed a bill into law requiring them to divest from the CCP,” a Scalise spokesperson told PI. “It should not come as a surprise to those representing TikTok that as long as TikTok remains connected to the CCP, Congress will continue its rigorous oversight efforts to safeguard Americans from foreign threats.”

Guys, that’s not “rigorous oversight” or “safeguarding Americans.” That’s using the threats of bogus costly investigations to force companies to stop working with TikTok and helping it defend its rights under the Constitution. That seems to be a hell of a lot more like “jawboning” and a much bigger First Amendment problem than the Biden administration complaining publicly that they didn’t like how Facebook was handling COVID misinformation.

Remember, this is what the GOP Congressional folks said when they filed their amicus in the Murthy case:

Wielding threats of intervention, the executive branch of the federal government has engaged in a sustained effort to coerce private parties into censoring speech on matters of public concern. On issue after issue, the Biden Administration has distorted the free marketplace of ideas promised by the First Amendment, bringing the weight of federal authority to bear on any speech it dislikes

Isn’t that… exactly what these Congressional committees are now doing themselves? Except, much worse? Because the threats are much more direct, and the punitive nature of not obeying is even clearer and more directly tied to the speech at issue?

This sure seems to be exactly unconstitutional “jawboning.”

Whether or not you believe that there are real risks from China, it seems absolutely ridiculous that Congress is now basically following an authoritarian playbook, threatening companies for merely associating with and/or defending the rights of a company.

It undermines the principles of free speech and association, allowing governmental entities to dictate what organizations can and cannot support. This overreach of power directly chills advocacy efforts and hinders the protection of fundamental rights.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: bytedance, netchoice, tiktok

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Congressional Committee Threatens To Investigate Any Company Helping TikTok Defend Its Rights”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
82 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

You will be there soon enough, if you get your way. Fascists will deal with “undesirables” first, but they will always go after “troublemakers” within their ranks. Did you refuse to follow orders? Did you wear the right uniform? Did you use the right term for a certain object or concept? One mistake⁠—no matter how small⁠—would earn you the label of “troublemaker”. From there, your inevitable suffering at the hands of those you welcomed into power would only be a matter of time.

The power to act without consequence or accountability is the dream of a child; it is no surprise, then, that emotionally stunted man-children believe in the violence of fascism. But all actions have consequences and even victory has its price. You demand fascism because you believe you will be untouched by its reach. Fascism, however, poisons everything⁠—and on a long enough timeline, it will poison you as well.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

I’m not really worried about becoming a target myself.

What do you think will happen to you when you make a mistake that an empowered fascist⁠—someone who can maim and torture and kill with impunity, someone who can end your life and never be punished for it⁠—thinks is one mistake too many? Even the slightest mistake can mark you as a “troublemaker” because fascism is an ouroboros: It will always eat itself because it must always have an enemy, even when that enemy is its own adherents.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Arijirija says:

Re: Re: Re:3

It’s one of the points Solzhenitsyn makes in the Gulag Archipelago – anyone who the Party thinks is going to be a threat, sooner or later gets taken to the Lubyanka and thence to the Gulag. It doesn’t matter what one’s previous performance has been – what counts is the level of paranoia of the Party faithful in power.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

What was that saying from Niemoller again?

Something about Nazis coming for the socialists, communist, Jew and then him last, because there was no one left to defend his ass?

And what Niemoller said is coming true in every openly fascist country, oh, and even in you Republican Party.

The face-eating leopards will eventually come for you and you won’t be able to run.

I hope you’ll at least have the balls to openly embrace your fate.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
T.L. (profile) says:

This shouldn't be a surprise, but makes it easy for TikTok's case

This only adds to the evidence that the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act was passed under blatantly devious circumstances, and probably wouldn’t have happened if the House wasn’t Republican-controlled (not that Democrats are absolved, since most of them voted for the bill). It makes it clear that the intent of the law is to ban TikTok, in violation of the First Amendment, buttressing TikTok’s case.

Masnick needs to write about the fact that several lawmakers were dumb enough to say the quite part out loud, and admit support for the PAFACA was based on the desire to censor pro-Palestinian/anti-war content, a flagrant act of viewpoint discrimination barred under the First Amendment. Mitt Romney (in a symposium with Secretary of State Antony Blinken) and Mike Lawler (in a conference call with No Labels) admitted as much last week, giving TikTok ammo to strengthen their case, not to mention the fact that many of the lawmakers who supported the PAFACA also criticized the app for protected speech critical of the war, even suggesting a ban would be justified for that reason. This pretty much illustrates the U.S.’s targeting of TikTok (from Trump’s failed EO to Montana’s blocked ban law to the PAFACA) is solely political and not based on actual evidence of security, which would make the late Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black (who said in the Pentagon Papers that “security is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment”) roll over in his grave.

Some articles for basis…
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/lawmakers-tiktok-ban-pro-palestinian-content-1235016101/
https://www.inquirer.com/columnists/attytood/tiktok-ban-protests-gaza-israel-houston-flooding-climate-change-20240507.html
https://theintercept.com/2024/05/04/josh-gottheimer-mike-lawler-campus-protests/
https://truthout.org/articles/tiktok-exposed-youth-to-genocide-in-gaza-is-that-why-electeds-want-it-banned/

That and the fact that House Republicans are trying to target anyone who defends the company’s constitutional rights to where NetChoice caved and dumped them from their membership helps TikTok’s messaging that it is a ban, not a divestment, so they’re literally making a case that the merits of Murthy v. Missouri actually apply here.

ECA (profile) says:

Does

The Gov. Inspecting you REALLY, scare you in the FIRST PLACE.
When the Gov., IRS and Other Gov. Agencies are SUPPOSED TO BE monitoring you Anyway?

Is Our gov. agencies so CUT BACK AND LAZY, that it takes Congress to get any action from it/them?

If OUR Alphabet Soup of Agencies Scares those corps, What are they hiding??
And IF’ those agencies go into ACTIVITY, and DO THEIR JOBS, and find nothing? Major?

WTH? They have been letting Capitalism Run Amuck to long. FIX ALL THE CORPS, NOT the ones You THINK you cant control.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Your Random CAPITALIZATION of the First LETTER of Words, AND in Fact whole WORDS themselves, Makes YOUR entire Comment very difficult TO Read.

In FACT, It reminds ME of a certain FORMER president who CAN’T Put his Phone AWAY at 2am in The MORNING.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

sadly I must concur, I often skip what ECA has to say, even though I know it’s usually pretty good (from the times I’ve struggled through it in past) because it’s just soooooooo hard to read.

It really is better to use italics or underlining or bold to add emphasis, rather than extreme capitalization… capitalization used this way comes off as yelling and also with the way some words have capital letters at the start and some don’t, you can’t tell where the sentences begin and end. The result is very disjointed.

I’ve never wanted to say so tho, as clearly it’s your preferred way to write… but yeah, for me it really takes away from the smart things you’re trying to say. just my two cents. I mean it nicely.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Cat_Daddy (profile) says:

In shooting TikTok’s foot, Congress has shot it’s own.

While this is an obvious attempt to weaken TikTok’s stance in its court case, I would argue that this also weakens the American Government’s. By engaging in hypocritical acts of jawboning, Congress has just given TikTok a new, effective point in its argument that the company is unfairly being targeted. In intimidating its allies, Congress has made the massive mistake of doing it publicly. Does this weaken TikTok? Yeah, the company has lost a major ally, there’s no beating around the bush. But I do think TikTok could potentially turn this loss into a positive in its arguments. What Congress has done isn’t just wrong, it’s also counterintuitive.

ECA (profile) says:

Re: here is the problem

The Gov. Let the BIG corps get a foot hold with the IDEA’s of trickle down theory and other Stupid concepts in Capitalism.
Thinking that the MORE they Make the MORE they will give their Workers,????

But the republicans SEEM to have been taken over By those idea’s and the Corps.(the word conservative, dont mean conservative, unless you wish to remove all the equality and fair labor practices back to 1939)

The REAL thought HERE. is that the Gov./republicans, Think they can CONTROL a company that Isnt acting like the rest. They think its a Wimp and they can beat on it.
Its the rich fighting a hostile middle wage company, NOT acting as a RICH person does. MORE MONEY to the Gov., Pay off the state and fed, and they wont bother you.

So those in charge of the gov for More then the last 50 years, have slowly CUT the internal gov. agencies and how they work. They cant do the jobs they were designed for, From Food to CAR safety.

ECA (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: how about this

For a nation that declares itself the greatest.
It seems afraid of something.
THEY CAN control most of the other corps, but get paid off NOT TO. Unless something is really wrong, That they THINK they see. Nothing happens.

What are the odds, TT, hasnt paid into the kitty enough?

Go watch the Times, that congress has CALLED all the forum/chat Programs together to Bitch about ????(fill in the blank) as the owners Couldnt figure out WTH, they were complaining about.

ITS A SHOW.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
T.L. (profile) says:

Re:

TikTok’s case was already strengthened when Mike Lawler and Mitt Romney admitted the week before Scalise’s strongarming of NetChoice that the reason why many lawmakers (GOP and Dem) supported the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act was because of content highlighting what’s going on on the ground in Gaza and criticizing the war (including the U.S.’s involvement). Notably, few Democrats supported a ban on TikTok until the war in Gaza happened (outside of a few like Krishnamoorthi and Mark Warner, most favored a divestiture or outright opposed any action that imposed some form of First Amendment issue); come Gaza, the vast majority of them backed the PAFACA. In fact, some lawmakers on both sides engaged in similar practices to force TikTok to take down content critical of the war, so there’s a strong case that the merits of the GOP attorney general plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri actually apply here.

Threatening to shut down a speech platform for content you don’t like, after pressuring the same platform to take down content for the same reason, or because you distrust the country it’s parent company is based in, especially knowing that the evidence of the national security risks claimed regarding the platform is largely hypothetical (and in a lot of ways indistinguishable from those that would apply to other social media platforms), and threatening any lobbying group who defends the platform (ignoring the basis of Citizens United is that companies have First Amendment rights), is the type of unlawful jawboning that the claimants in Murthy think the Biden administration is engaging in.

T.L. (profile) says:

Re:

Scalise wouldn’t have done that if he was the minority leader. In fact, the select committee on the Chinese Communist Party only came into existence because Republicans wanted to start it when they took control of the House. Usually, GOP threats to weaponize investigatory powers against political foes don’t work out the way they want to. NetChoice idiotically showed Republicans that they can use such threats to intimidate opponents, which should worry us all. The group and Carl Szabo need to be condemned for abdicating their duty to protect the digital rights of Americans, just because lawmakers want to punish China (which they fail to realize will come back to haunt us, since we still have a substantial economic relationship with China and they can damage our economy as retaliation; remember, they own $859 billion in U.S. debt that they can dump on us and sink our economy if we’re not careful).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

they own $859 billion in U.S. debt that they can dump on us and sink our economy if we’re not careful

Uh

Considering that Americans own the majority of American debt and that number is, at most, 10% (or up to 20%) of all American Debt, its effects on the global economy are going to be less visible than either the Americans refusing to honor those debts (or, more likely, cutting off China from the SWIFT Network) or the collapse of the Chinese economy.

Arijirija says:

Re:

Well, if the worse comes to the worse, you can always get them dosed. A Kiwi friend put me on to this little song:
https://folksong.org.nz/dog_dosing_dunsandel/index.html
It would be fun to ask your average congresscritter if he or she has been dosed for hydatids … it’s about as relevant as their present actions in wishing to suppress the First Amendment, but funnier.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

This also places netchoice in a weakened state. By allowing the gop to threaten them over supporting TikTok they’ll possibly be less effective for future fights against garbage like kosa if all scalise has to say is we might investigate you for opposing us.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I’d say it does weaken Netchoice, but only marginally.

“Marginally” is being charitable. NetChoice has every legal right to support TikTok; now it can no longer be trusted to support any other company on its list because of how quickly it caved to Congress’s threats over TikTok.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: 'If you won't have my back why would I pay to support yours?'

Reputations are like glass sculptures: Painstaking to make, requiring time and dedication, but they can be shattered in an instant and should they be broken it’s all but impossible to rebuild them to the state they were before.

NetChoice just showed that they can be intimidated into no longer defending someone/something, all it takes is the right pressure. That is anything but ‘marginal’ damage to their reputation as now anyone who currently support them or might have supported them in the future under the belief that they will fight against injustices has good reason to believe otherwise.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Reputations are like glass sculptures: Painstaking to make, requiring time and dedication, but they can be shattered in an instant and should they be broken it’s all but impossible to rebuild them to the state they were before.

Oooh, I like that over the spinal cord metaphor I tend to use for trust/credibility.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re:

Nope. They pointed out that what actually happened doesn’t violate the 1A, and that what was alleged to have happened didn’t actually happened. They never said it was a good thing.

Additionally, the cases are distinguishable. We have testimony from those involved that Scalise threatened them into acting as certain way based on their exercise and defense of 1A rights. We don’t have testimony from those in Meta or Twitter saying they felt threatened. If there is no subjectively-held, reasonable belief that they were being coerced, then I fail to see how it’s coercive. There’s also the distinction that NetChoice bent to government pressure where Meta and Twitter did not most of the time.

Basically, your comparison is invalid.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

“Whether or not you believe that there are real risks from China, it seems absolutely ridiculous that Congress is now basically following an authoritarian playbook, threatening companies for merely associating with and/or defending the rights of a company.”

Not if you see how many millions they have recently invested in facebook

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

'It's not fair, I want to be able to do that to those that I don't like!'

More and more the members of congress expose that when they criticize the likes of China for their contempt for free speech and willingness to crack down on any that the state doesn’t agree with their complaints are based less upon objections to that behavior and more in jealously that it’s another country’s government wielding those powers.

TDestroyer209 says:

Congress is getting so ridiculous these days

I find it a bit wtf that a house committee can bully anyone who tries to help defending TikTok with all sorts of empty threats like lawsuits and such.

That to me sounds like the first amendment is being violated by politicians who need to use their bully pulpit powers to act like they are doing something but in reality are using these powers to threaten/bully anyone who dares opposes their plans.

NetChoice should’ve told Scalise and his crew of idiots to go pound sand.

Arianity says:

Does anyone think it’s right for Congress to threaten to punish organizations from working with TikTok? Does that sound like a First Amendment violation to you? Because it sure does to me.

It’s definitely not right.

As a legal matter with respect to the First Amendment, it’s probably protected by Speech and Debate. It’s basically impossible to hold Congresspeople responsible for things they say in their official duty, so don’t get your hopes up for any sort of legal/official reprimand.

But it is shameful, and they should be shamed for it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

As a legal matter with respect to the First Amendment, it’s probably protected by Speech and Debate.

“We’re going to smear your reputation and do everything we can to destroy you if you don’t coöperate with us.” How could that ever be protected by the Speech and Debate Clause when it is clearly an attempt by Congress to extort a specific result from the entity being threatened?

Arianity says:

Re: Re:

“We’re going to smear your reputation and do everything we can to destroy you if you don’t coöperate with us.” How could that ever be protected by the Speech and Debate Clause when it is clearly an attempt by Congress to extort a specific result from the entity being threatened?

SCOTUS seems to take S&D extremely broadly, to the point where virtually anything is covered. S&D as written isn’t that broad, but if you look at cases:

To quote United States v Brewster: In its narrowest scope, the Clause is a very large, albeit essential, grant of privilege. It has enabled reckless men to slander and even destroy others with impunity, but that was the conscious choice of the Framers.

Similarly US. v Johnson held (c) The Speech or Debate Clause forecloses inquiry not only into the “content” of a congressional speech, but into circumstances involving the motives for making it.
Prosecution under a general criminal statute involving inquiry into the motives for and circumstances surrounding a congressional speech is barred even though the gravamen of the offense is the alleged conspiracy, rather than the speech itself.

There’s a bunch of other cases as well, like Tenney v Brandhove; where a rep was accused of using hearings as intimidation. The ruling explicitly said The claim of an unworthy purpose does not destroy the privilege

The test they actually apply comes from Kilbourn, which said:
(1) Inquiries must not “invade areas constitutionally reserved to the courts or the executive”
(2) Inquiries must deal “with subjects on which Congress could validly legislate”
(3) The resolution authorizing the investigation must specify ” a congressional interest in legislating on that subject.”
(4) Where the inquiry can result in “no valid legislation,” then the “Private affairs of individuals” are not valid targets for inquiry

That isn’t that bad on it’s face, but it seems to interpret “congressional interest in legislating on that subject” as taking that interest at maximal good faith face value, to the point of ignoring any context. Even if context makes it clear that the ‘congressional interest’ is obviously pretextual, if there’s the slightest possible legislative interest, it gives the benefit of the doubt

Caveat, not a lawyer, of course, so maybe I’m misunderstanding it. But as a practical matter, it seems like anything short of quid pro quo literal moneybags is basically off limits, with how SCOTUS treats S&D.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Remember when they accused the evil evil Biden of making big tech silence conservative voices with threats?

This is what threats actually look like.

McCarthyism is alive & well, because it is the last refuge of politicians who are out of ideas.
McCarthy was on his way out until he invented this whole witch hunt that he used to punish people because he enjoyed it.

GQP where we do everything we accuse the other side of doing, but we pretend its okay when we do it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

If you are a lawyer repsenting TikTok, you just keep your office computer encrypted.

Professional versions of Windows, from Vista on, have the abilility to encrypt the disk where if it it taken from one machine and put in another, the contents cannot be read.

This way if Congress investigates you and takes your computer, forensic software wont be able to read the contents because of the encryption.

They can take the hard disk out and put it in another machine, but will do them no good if the contents are encrypted.

There is no law in any of the 50 states that makes if it illegal to lock investigators out of your hard disk in that manner.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...