Banning TikTok has nothing to do with the constitutional right to free speech

TikTok’s CEO comes after President Biden signed a law requiring TikTok’s Chinese parent company ByteDance to withdraw from the app or face a ban in the United States. Mr Hsu Chu has vowed to fight the case in court.Social media company spokesperson Said They argued that the law was unconstitutional because it “trampled on the free speech rights of 170 million Americans.”

This statement shows a misunderstanding of rights in general and constitutional rights such as freedom of speech in particular. In most cases, the rights enumerated in the Constitution are negative rights. Holders of negative rights have the right to non-interference. If I have a negative right to something, others have an obligation not to deprive me of what I have a rightful claim to.

For example, the right to freedom of movement enshrined in Article 13 of the Constitution. universal declaration of human rights, is an example of a negative right. The right to freedom of movement means that you have the right to move freely from one country to another. However, no one is obligated to help me with my travel arrangements, and I am not obligated to provide travel accommodations of any kind.

On the other hand, the holder of positive rights has the right to provide some goods or services. That is, if I have a positive right to something, others have an obligation to give me what I have a rightful claim to. For example, the right to nationality listed in Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an example of a positive right. Citizenship rights mean that I have the right to have a nationality. The country I was born in is obligated to provide that for me. I have a nationality obligation.

The freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment is an example of a negative right. I have the right to express myself freely, but no one is obligated to help me express myself. In particular, no one owes me a space to express myself. I am under no obligation to contribute columns to The Hill or any other news organization.

That’s why the argument is made that the law requiring ByteDance to leave TikTok is against the law.right to free speechThe American word “” is wrong. Even if TikTok were to be banned in the United States because of ByteDance’s refusal to exit the social media app, it would not be a violation of Americans’ constitutional rights to free speech. Freedom of speech is a negative right. The right to free speech does not mean the federal government is obligated to provide all Americans with a platform to air their speech. It simply means that the federal government should not interfere with Americans’ freedom of expression.

As social media companies, having one less digital platform to express ourselves will not stifle Americans’ free speech. claim. The Constitution gives Americans the freedom to speak freely without interference. We do not guarantee speaking engagements for Americans.As other social media companies I once saidfreedom of speech is not freedom of reach.

Moti Mizrahi is a professor of philosophy at Florida Institute of Technology in Melbourne, Florida.