CCTV: tiktoks lawsuit shows the attitude and determination of safeguarding rights

category:Internet
 CCTV: tiktoks lawsuit shows the attitude and determination of safeguarding rights


Since then, tiktok has been actively providing relevant data and solutions to CFIUS, but the Committee has refused to contact and communicate with tiktoks lawyers.

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

At 11:55 p.m. on July 30, just five minutes before the Commissions statutory review deadline, the Committee on foreign investment issued a statement saying it was convinced that tiktok would acquire in 2017 Musical.ly The statement did not provide evidence of a national security risk.

Two days later, on August 6, trump signed an executive order saying tiktok posed a threat to us national security and would prohibit any US individual or entity from conducting any transactions with tiktok and its Chinese parent company byte hopping after 45 days.

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).

In response, tiktok said in the indictment:

We are not a national security threat, we have very strict data controls, said papas, tiktoks interim global head. Our team has built a world-class architecture with the primary and core concern of protecting our users.

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.

First of all, the international economic Emergency Powers Act, which is the basis of the executive order, is too vague for the presidents authorization.

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;

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.

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.

On March 6, 2017, trump amended the prohibition order to exclude people with green cards and visa in the travel ban. In more than a year, trump revised the travel ban twice. Finally, on June 26, 2018, the US Supreme Court passed the travel ban by a narrow margin of 5:4, which ended the 16 month 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.

Extended reading foreign media: Chinese hand! Tiktok deal may be pushed to after the US election Guo Mingzhen: Huaweis mobile phone is punished by the United States at the worst, or it withdraws from the mobile phone market to crush Huawei, tiktok... The mysterious American organization that bullies Chinese enterprises at the beginning of the event. Source: Qiao JunJing, editor in charge of CCTV news_ NBJ11279