According to reports, Trumps new regulations will narrow the right of social media companies to delete objectionable content. These large technology companies stressed that from a legal point of view, Trumps new requirements to regulate social media activities have no legal support and are entirely based on personal beliefs and may cause errors. The introduction of new regulations to regulate social media activities could deprive them of legal protection in the fight against online fraud, swindlers and other inappropriate content..
According to reports, trump signed an executive order in May to regulate social media activities in the country. Trump believes that social media can do whatever they want before the law is enacted. Earlier, a message from Trump on twitter was marked with a special flag, warning readers that the information contained in the post may be inaccurate and needs further verification. In response, trump publicly threatened to further strengthen regulation if social media in the United States continues to cover up conservative voices..
Tiktoks hard case against the US government
In August 6th, when the administrative order was signed, TikTok (TikTok International Version) was transferred in 45 days. President Trump issued an administrative order in August 14th to increase the chip, which was purchased by the US Foreign Investment Commission (CFIUS) in 2017. Musical.ly The divestiture of the companys predecessor, Tik 90 in the United States, was required by Tik 90 days in the United States Any data.
In its second executive order, trump said: there is solid evidence that I believe that byte skipping is through the acquisition of music social apps musical.ly Eventually, it will merge into a social media application, tiktok, which may take actions that are detrimental to the national security of the United States.
As chairman of CFIUS, U.S. Treasury Secretary mnuchin issued the legal basis for interpreting the second executive order: the Foreign Investment Commission conducted a detailed review of the case and unanimously recommended that the president take this action to protect U.S. users from the use of personal data..
After the first administrative order was issued, byte skipping has indicated that it will file a lawsuit against the U.S. government. Now that the second executive order comes down, what is the basis of challenging the two executive orders through the judicial channels of the United States? What are the chances of success?
The second administrative order mending knife
According to data from SensorTower, the mobile terminal application market, in May, the global revenue of jitter and TikTok exceeded 95 million 700 thousand US dollars, 10.6 times the same period in 2019, and won the world mobile app tiktok. About 89% of the revenue comes from the Chinese market; the US market ranks second, accounting for 6.2% of the total revenue.
Tiktoks success has made it a thorn in the eye of American competitors and regulators. Last year, the U.S. Congress began a national security based investigation into tiktok. The two focuses of the survey are: content review system and personal information control.
At the US Senate sub committee hearing on China and data security, technical experts pointed out that tiktok users include not only children and children, but also government or military personnel, as well as celebrities or personnel holding important positions in large companies. They are worried that the Chinese government will use this to grasp important information and deduce strategic information.
At present, the purpose of Trumps first administrative order is to put extreme pressure on American buyers and can be used as bargaining chips for us buyers to negotiate and negotiate prices, although it agrees in principle that tiktok will change hands. The second executive order, intended to put extra pressure on byte skipping, means clearly that unless it falls into the hands of Americans, they will kill tiktok.
In order to put pressure on tiktok, Trumps two administrative decrees seek different legal basis.
The first administrative order is based on the international emergency economic power act, the state of Emergency Act and section 301 of Chapter 3 of the United States Code. The international emergency economic power law explicitly stipulates that the jurisdiction of the government should exclude any post, telegram, telephone or other personal communication that does not involve any value transfer. Of course, whether the short video in tiktok involves value transfer, whether it only ends in personal communication, and whether it will be protected by this exclusion clause are all issues that need to be debated and interpreted by the court in the future.
The second administrative order gives the U.S. government a more reliable tool of attack and defense, because if the first administrative order is challenged by litigation, whether the ban on social software constitutes a deprivation of private property in violation of procedural justice has not been tested by the court. The second administrative order is based on the Cfius precedent and has clear legal procedures to implement, which should be more able to withstand legal challenges.
The first administrative order stipulates that the deadline for selling tiktok is September 20, while the second is November 12. Stuart Becker, former chief law officer of the US National Security Agency and assistant policy Secretary of the Department of homeland security, believes that the second executive order does not change the deadline for byte skipping divestiture of US assets. The imminent September 20 deadline is effective, while the November 12 deadline only means the result of stimulating another legal mechanism.
That is to say, the second administrative order is like the insurance policy of the first administrative order. It does not replace the first administrative order, but creates a second legal basis for the divestiture requirement and other implementation measures, so that trump can fasten the safety belt on the sling of the first administrative order.