Judge blocks Trump plan to ban TikTok on Nov. 12
A federal judge sided with three TikTok stars who argued that President Trump's executive order to ban the service in the U.S. infringes on their First Amendment rights.
Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Friday issued a preliminary injunction halting the impending ban, scheduled to take effect on Nov. 12, saying that the three plaintiffs in the case "have demonstrated a clear likelihood of irreparable harm," reports Variety.
In the order, Beetlestone writes that the government's "own descriptions of the national security threat posed by the TikTok app are phrased in the hypothetical" so she is unable to find that "the risk presented by the government outweighs the public interest in enjoining" the ban, according to the report.
Alec Chambers, Douglas Marland and Cosette Rinab filed suit against Trump and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in September claiming that a TikTok ban would impact their ability to earn money. Rinab earns between $5,000 and $10,000 per video for content sponsored by fashion brands and other companies, while Chambers made $12,000 for a video touting Extra gum, the report said.
Beetlestone's ruling is a turnabout from an earlier decision in September, when the jurist rejected the creators' arguments.
Today's injunction is the latest development in the ongoing TikTok debacle. The Trump administration previously attempted to halt downloads of the app in September but was rebuffed hours before the order was set to go into effect. That decision was appealed by the Department of Justice.
Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Friday issued a preliminary injunction halting the impending ban, scheduled to take effect on Nov. 12, saying that the three plaintiffs in the case "have demonstrated a clear likelihood of irreparable harm," reports Variety.
In the order, Beetlestone writes that the government's "own descriptions of the national security threat posed by the TikTok app are phrased in the hypothetical" so she is unable to find that "the risk presented by the government outweighs the public interest in enjoining" the ban, according to the report.
Alec Chambers, Douglas Marland and Cosette Rinab filed suit against Trump and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in September claiming that a TikTok ban would impact their ability to earn money. Rinab earns between $5,000 and $10,000 per video for content sponsored by fashion brands and other companies, while Chambers made $12,000 for a video touting Extra gum, the report said.
Beetlestone's ruling is a turnabout from an earlier decision in September, when the jurist rejected the creators' arguments.
Today's injunction is the latest development in the ongoing TikTok debacle. The Trump administration previously attempted to halt downloads of the app in September but was rebuffed hours before the order was set to go into effect. That decision was appealed by the Department of Justice.
Comments
Ahhh, That makes no sense. But I'm glad you're sharing your rather paranoid disconnected train of thoughts with the readers here. Again I'd ask you read about the case, see that the app offered no threats, no real threats, and then realize it was being used as a political pawn by the Federal Government that is run by Trump - who does plenty of business with China. Again, read about the real issues. There are serious issues but taking this to the an extreme doesn't help the debate.
Congress should mandate that all products which have optional upload services (including TikTok) come with product labels or daily pop-ups indicating their security and privacy concerns. Cigarette packages come with warnings, and here are a few similar warnings that would seem appropriate for webcams and always on home speakers:
WARNING: Foreign governments can legally use the images and audio you upload against you.
WARNING: Foreign governments are collecting data on you from this product without your permission.
WARNING: Foreign governments intend to use data collected by this device against you.
WARNING: This product's recording features could cause serious harm to your children including abduction.
With these warnings, the three complainants in this case would still be able to earn their income, but people will become better educated over time of the risks they are taking.
I'm confused, when you say "China," are you supporting the people of China or the Chinese Communist Party dictators? I hope China prospers under a free people and democratic government. Do you agree or disagree with that sentiment?
Your third and fourth warning are simply FUD.
Not sure why you think people aren't educated about the risks of the products they use. I think most people are aware. They just don't care. They don't care because they realize the chances of actually being affected by any of this is extremely unlikely. It's similar to stories about a new vulnerability discovered that affects Macs. First Reaction: Oh no, someone can get into our computers. Reality: Yeah, not really anything to worry about for 99.99999999999999999... 999999999999999999999999999999999% of the people.
Daily pop-ups is a horrendous idea. It's a perfect example of the Boy Who Cried Wolf fable. Take a moment to think about how many products would fit your "have optional upload services" criteria. We live in an IoT era. Almost everything we use has optional upload services and most of it is manufactured outside of the US. It would make Microsoft's infamous UAC pop-up seem like a walk in the park.
So, maybe those warnings should be on a sign inside your front door, warning you before going outside that you are at extreme risk of someone knowing where you are.
When we say China/Chinese; we refer to PRC(Communist party) and not to Chinese people. If we take religion out, more or less regular citizens are same everywhere.
No one against doing business with China. It is about fairness, You won't understand until you have to deal with it. Ask American companies who got screwed by Chinese by breaking legal agreements., stealing IP and copying it. Today, people's information call DATA is strategic weapon to increase commerce and exploit them. TikTok store Americans/European/Indian/whoever Data on Chinese servers where goverment people by law has access to it. How Data can and will be used is not your ability to comprehend. By jibber-jabbering on internet with little or no understanding the scope of what this Data can damage to the American economy(people's living) in long term is not a cup of yours or mine tea. When several federal agencies provide feedback on their investigation,analysis of TikTok's danger to American people, better let them decide what is right or wrong for the country. Unfortunately, uninformed Americans(and those who derive small benefit from TikTok) are the biggest danger to the country.
That's why our courts are being packed with right wing zealots. Impartial, fact based courts rule 'the wrong way', so they want to fix that problem. Remove the obstacle.
Like an army, first responders depend on accurate intelligence to know how to deploy their scarce resources to best advantage.
Yet, the U.S. is the spy capital of the world. But you're worried about China????? (Shakes head and walks away.....)