Tiktoks lawsuit shows the attitude and determination of safeguarding rights

category:Hot
 Tiktoks lawsuit shows the attitude and determination of safeguarding rights


In the 39 page indictment, tiktok said that as early as October last year, some U.S. congressmen proposed to the Committee on foreign investment that tiktok should take action against U.S. companies in 2017 Musical.ly The acquisition is subject to national security review.

Until June this year, CFIUS suddenly launched a formal review.

The job of the Committee on foreign investment in the United States (CFIUS) is to review commercial transactions and ensure that they do not pose a threat to national security. If the Commission has doubts about a deal, it advises the president to stop it.

A few days later, trump spoke to tiktok.

On August 14, trump added a second executive order, requiring byte skipping to divest tiktok of all interests in U.S. operations within 90 days, saying the executive order was based on an investigation by the US Foreign Investment Commission (CFIUS).

We tried to communicate and solve problems with the U.S. government in good faith for nearly a year, but in the end, we received a ban order. . We strongly oppose the US governments position that tiktok poses a threat to national security. We will not easily sue the government, but we have no choice but to protect our community, our employees and ourselves.

According to the Washington Post, trump signed an executive order against tiktok. The so-called facts are based on the review results of the Cfius, and the legal basis is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

This is a federal law passed in 1977, empowering the president of the United States to declare a state of emergency without the approval of Congress in the event of an unusual and extremely serious threat to the country. At the same time, a series of restrictive measures can be implemented, such as restricting transactions, freezing or confiscating assets, etc.

Up to now, successive U.S. presidents have invoked the act 58 times, including imposing economic sanctions on Iran, Russia and other countries, as well as restricting the exchange of funds between terrorists.

During his three-year term, trump invoked the law six times, including the ban on tiktok. In 2019, during the Sino US trade friction, trump also cited the law to order American enterprises in China to leave China.

In the indictment against the trump administration, tiktok questioned the application of the international economic Emergency Powers Act.

Secondly, the administrative order uses vague expressions such as potential, possible and reported, but fails to provide the actual evidence that tiktok poses a real threat to national security and the country is in a state of emergency, which is not in line with the authorization premise set by the international economic emergency power law;

Thirdly, the international economic emergency power law clearly stipulates that administrative acts are prohibited to prevent the communication and exchange of personal information, while the prohibition of tiktok is just a restriction on personal communication and information material transmission.

In addition, tiktok also listed three other unconstitutional and one ultra vires of Trumps administrative order, totaling seven crimes.

American media have jokingly said that trump has two unique magic weapons in power: Twitter and executive order.

On January 27, 2017, trump just took office and signed an administrative order entitled national protection plan to prevent foreign terrorists from entering the United States: in the next 90 days, citizens of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and Liberia will be prohibited from entering the United States, which is called the prohibition order by the US media.

The executive order immediately sparked widespread protests.

A week after the executive order was signed, on February 3, 2017, U.S. Federal District Court Judge Robert lobart suspended the order of prohibition which caused a great stir across the country.

The next day, the federal government appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of appeal.

Five days later, the appeal was dismissed and judge robarts decision was upheld.

At present, tiktok has filed a lawsuit in the federal court, which may also open a judicial dispute.

The federal government can appeal for the suspension of Trumps injunction against tiktok until the outcome of the lawsuit is reached, but at least it can buy valuable time for tiktok. Of course, the opposite is possible: federal courts refuse to suspend tiktoks injunction, and tiktok chooses to appeal.

As for the lawsuit, the US media CNBC commented that although the odds are not high, the practical significance of the lawsuit lies in that it can gain more time, more rights and interests and more bargaining chips for itself through legal means. At the same time, byte beat also shows the attitude and determination of safeguarding rights and conveys confidence to the global market, investors and users.