TikTok case hearing began today with Supreme Court:

“The Court also established the Chrestensen doctrine. The doctrine provided that commercial speech, or expression promoting commercial activities, isn’t entitled to First Amendment protection. According to the doctrine, this holds true regardless of how the expression is communicated.”

Arguing on behalf of TikTok: Noel Francisco contended that the law burdens TikTok’s speech, so the First Amendment applies. The government “has no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda” and cannot constitutionally try to keep Americans from being “persuaded by Chinese misinformation,” he said. That is targeting speech, which the First Amendment does not permit, he added.

Arguing on behalf of the government: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the solicitor general, countered that the act does not violate the First Amendment. “All of the same speech that’s happening on TikTok could happen post-divestiture,”

——