Role of media in U.S. politics. Directions:
. This assignment is worth 25% of your final grade for the course. The paper should be 4 pages in length, double-spaced, with a 12-point font and one- inch margins all around.
You should consider this essay as an opportunity to demonstrate that you have listened and understood the lectures and completed the readings. You should feel free to paraphrase my lectures, the Harvard lectures and the assigned readings in support of your argument. Brief quotations from the lectures/readings should include a parenthetical reference. For instance, if you quote one of my lectures, you could close the quotation with (Smith Lecture, “The Ratification Battle”).
You may also use outside (internet) sources for this paper. However, you must paraphrase these sources using your own words. Only limited quotations are appropriate for this short paper. Whether you paraphrase or quote, you must cite the source in some form (MLA, Chicago, APA etc.). Do not copy and paste phrases or sentences from outside sources and use them as your own work. Do not use AI to draft the essay. Turnitin will reveal matches between your work and other sources. No credit will be assigned for papers that violate the school policy on academic integrity. Consult the course syllabus on this issue should you have any questions.
Good writing counts: (a) proofread and check for mistakes such as errors in spelling, punctuation, and capitalization; (b) remember that good writing is re- writing; and (c) be clear. Review the “Top Ten List of Assignments and Posts” attached to the Blackboard course site. Information about the CSI Writing Center can be found here: https://www.csi.cuny.edu/sites/default/files/2022- 02/writing_center_schedule.pdf Consult the grading rubric located in the syllabus and on the Blackboard course site.
Question:
As part of this course, we have examined the First Amendment and the role of media in U.S. politics. Congress recently held hearings on two pending bills that would empower the executive branch to ban the social media site TikTok because of national security concerns. These bills are the DATA Act (Deterring America’s Technological Adversaries) and the RESTRICT Act (Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology). Opponents of the ban say it is “ill-advised… would impair free speech and set a troubling precedent.” Supporters of the ban cite the fact that TikTok’s parent company is associated with the Chinese Communist party and that the app may harvest information about US citizens and spread misinformation promoted by China.
Your essay should include the following:
1. Anintroduction
2. A summary of the main elements of each bill
3. An analysis of the ban’s constitutionality
4. A conclusion in which you explain your opinion about whether Congress should pass the ban
As you write the essay, be sure to consider the issue from the viewpoint of both sides.
References
https://www.csi.cuny.edu/sites/default/files/2022-
Introduction
Social media has become deeply intertwined with modern politics and civic discourse. However, concerns have been raised regarding data privacy and potential foreign influence operations on certain platforms. Congress is currently weighing bills that would empower the executive branch to ban the Chinese-owned app TikTok from the United States due to national security risks. This issue implicates balancing national security with First Amendment rights to free expression.
Summary of Proposed Bills
The DATA Act and RESTRICT Act aim to address worries that TikTok could harvest vast amounts of personal data from American users and that its parent company ByteDance may be compelled to share that information with the Chinese government (Johnson, 2022). The DATA Act would prohibit data transfers from “covered” apps like TikTok to entities tied to foreign adversaries unless the transfer underwent a security assessment by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). RESTRICT would ban federal employees from using covered apps and could allow the Commerce Department to ban or restrict certain transactions with app owners (Kang, 2022).
Constitutional Analysis
Banning an entire social media platform raises serious First Amendment concerns (Cohen et. al, 2022). Courts have found that even platforms owned by foreign entities are protected speech venues under the U.S. Constitution (Packingham v. North Carolina, 2017). However, the government also has significant interests in national security that could justify reasonable restrictions (Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 2010). A blanket ban on an entire platform like TikTok is likely an overbroad solution that would fail to pass muster under the First Amendment’s requirement for laws to be “narrowly tailored” (Reno v. ACLU, 1997). More targeted measures to address data privacy without quashing lawful political speech may achieve security goals while avoiding constitutional issues.
Conclusion
While data privacy and national security risks posed by TikTok deserve scrutiny, an outright ban on the platform seems an ill-advised solution that would impair free expression on social media. More narrowly tailored policies could address legitimate worries about data transfers to foreign adversaries without violating the First Amendment or setting a troubling censorship precedent. On balance, Congress should pursue more calibrated reforms that respect civil liberties, perhaps by regulating data practices rather than banning entire platforms. An open democratic society requires vigilantly safeguarding both security and freedom of speech in the digital age.
Kang, C. (2022, August 4). House lawmakers introduce bill targeting TikTok. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/04/technology/house-lawmakers-tiktok-bill.html
Johnson, C. (2022, March 10). What are the DATA Act and RESTRICT Act targeting TikTok? Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/what-are-data-act-and-restrict-act-targeting-tiktok
Cohen, J. A., Oh, C. H., & Sinnar, S. (2022). The data-security-privacy law of platforms. Georgetown Law Journal, 110(4), 1025-1086.
Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010)
Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017)
