The following podcast contains advertising.

To access an ad-free version of the LawFair podcast,

become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash law fair.

That's patreon.com slash law fair.

Also, check out LawFair's other podcast offerings,

rational security, chatter, law fair no bull, and the aftermath.

I think there's still a possibility of this highest level of scrutiny,

strict scrutiny, even if the government is aiming to protect privacy interests

because the banning an entire platform where there's a real concern that people's access to information is going to be impacted.

I think that the government will have some issues with the content,

arguing that this is content neutral because it's a concerns rest so heavily on what a foreign power would do with that information.

It seems very speaker-based or platform-based, and not neutral in the way that we usually think of time place and beginner restrictions.

I'm Alan Rosenstein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Senior Editor at LawFair.

And this is the LawFair podcast, April 14, 2023.

Today, we're bringing you an episode of Arbiters of Truth, our series on the information ecosystem.

Over the past few years, TikTok has become a uniquely polarizing social media platform.

On the one hand, millions of users, especially those in their teens and twenties, love the app.

On the other hand, the government is concerned that TikTok's vulnerability to pressure from the Chinese Communist Party makes it a serious national security threat.

There's even talk of banning the app altogether. But would that be legal?

In particular, does the First Amendment allow the government to ban an application that's used by millions to communicate every day?

To think through the legal and policy implications of a TikTok ban, my co-host, Matt Peralt and I, spoke with Rumbia Krishnan,

a staff attorney at the Night First Amendment in Sudaklumbia University and Mary Rose Peppandreya,

...