> While the court today decides that the Act's divestment mandate survives a First Amendment challenge, that is not
without regard for the significant interests at stake on all sides. Some 170 million Americans use TikTok to create and view all sorts of free expression and engage with one another and the world. And yet, in part precisely because of the platform's expansive reach, Congress and multiple Presidents determined that divesting it from the PRC's control is essential to protect
our national security.<p>To give effect to those competing interests, Congress chose divestment as a means of paring away the PRC's control-and
thus containing the security threat—while maintaining the app and its algorithm for American users. But if no qualifying divestment occurs—including because of the PRC's or ByteDance's unwillingness-many Americans may lose access to an outlet for expression, a source of community,
and even a means of income.<p>Congress judged it necessary to assume that risk given the grave national-security threats it perceived. And because the record reflects that Congress's decision was considered, consistent with longstanding regulatory practice, and devoid of an institutional aim to suppress particular messages or ideas,
we are not in a position to set it aside.
[dupe] Some more discussion: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42340959">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42340959</a>