LIVE: TikTok Attorneys Speak After Supreme Court Arguments

Good afternoon everyone. Thank you for being here today. We will now get started with our press conference. Our first speaker is attorney Noel Francisco who represented TikTok and our parent company ByteDance this morning before the Supreme Court. Good afternoon everyone. My name is Noel Francisco. I'm a partner at Jones Day and I'm proud to represent TikTok Incorporated and ByteDance Limited in this important First Amendment case. We thought that the argument went very well. The justices are extremely engaged. They fully understand the importance of this case not only for the American citizens of this country but for First Amendment law generally in the rights of everybody. We thought that they vigorously questioned both sides. They put us through our paces but what really came through is that they understand the importance of this case. We're very hopeful of a favorable decision. I'd just like to emphasize a few points that came up during the argument. First and perhaps most importantly, TikTok Incorporated is a United States company. It's incorporated in the state of California. It's got thousands of employees based here in the United States. The government does not dispute that it is a bona fide U.S. subsidiary operating in the United States in accordance with all of the applicable principles of American corporate law. Second, ByteDance Limited is a private company. It is a private holding company that is based in the Cayman Islands. It is not owned by China. No arm of the Chinese government has an ownership stake directly or indirectly in TikTok Incorporated or ByteDance. ByteDance rather is 58% owned by global institutional investors including very large American institutional investors like Susquehanna and General Atlantic. It is 21% owned by its employees, many of whom are American employees here in the United States and it is 21% owned by one of its founders who is a Chinese national living in Singapore. Third, TikTok Incorporated exercises independent judgment with respect to the algorithm in the United States. The source code for the algorithm is brought into the United States and stored on servers located in Virginia. There it's converted into executable code, it's modified, it's customized, it's trained, it's moderated pursuant to moderation policies and it's implemented in the United States. So when TikTok Incorporated implements the recommendation in the United States, that is very much TikTok Incorporated's speech. That is the speech of a U.S. entity speaking in the United States. Fourth, the intellectual property for the algorithm is not owned by the Chinese government. It is owned by ByteDance Limited which is a global entity, a company that is incorporated in the Cayman Islands and operates through subsidiaries throughout the world. And then my final substantive point is that the United States government concedes that it has no evidence that China has ever attempted to date to control the U.S. TikTok platform. It concedes that China has not attempted to censor content on the platform in the United States. It concedes that China has not attempted to misappropriate user data in the United States. And if China ever asked TikTok or asked TikTok through ByteDance to do any such thing, it would refuse. I think what we heard today in oral arguments when all of the lawyers were up were the important First Amendment principles at stake here. We're talking about a social media platform that is regularly used by 170 million Americans. That is half the country. This country has never taken the step of shutting down a speech platform, much less such an important speech platform, because as the government effectively concedes in its briefs, it's afraid that the content that could come out on that platform might be, you know, dangerous. We don't normally think of speech as dangerous. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said speech is not dangerous. And you don't shut down a speech platform because you're worried about speech being dangerous. That is the whole point of the First Amendment, that we engage ideas with ideas and we let the truth come out. That's the fundamental problem with this act. It doesn't reflect the trust that the First Amendment places in the American people. We are confident that the Supreme Court will place that trust in the American people, and we look forward to a favorable decision out of the court. I'd now like to introduce my colleague and dear friend, Jeff Fisher. Thank you, Noel. My name is Jeff Fisher. I'm a lawyer at Special Counsel at Albany & Myers, and I represented the creator petitioners in this case. So I'll start with where Mr. Francisco left off. This is an unprecedented case. I don't think there's any way to think about it in any other fashion. The government has never threatened to shut down a speech platform in this country because of the ideas expressed on that platform. And so the point of the creators here and their participation in this lawsuit is to absolutely drive that point home and remind the justices and remind the public that this case is at core about Americans speaking to other Americans about everything from everyday life to current events to anything else they care to express themselves on this particular platform about. And that is a most cherished freedom in this country. Another way to think about this is creators expressing themselves in all sorts of ways, whether it be with words or art or music or anything in between, have a right to choose under our First Amendment what publisher is best for them, what editor is best for them. A journalist can publish in a particular magazine because they like the leadership and the owners of that magazine as opposed to someone else. A music band can post their music on a particular platform or play in a particular venue in a particular city because they find that that expresses their art the best. Any number of other permutations that you can imagine, we don't have any decision ever from the United States Supreme Court that has ever restricted the right of a creator, a speaker in this country to express themselves through collaboration with publishers and editors against their own wishes, that they can be overridden in that sense. And it doesn't matter whether we're talking about purely American collaborators or whether our American collaborators have also foreign corporate entities to which they are related as well. Whether it's the BBC, the CBC, or NPR, people can choose to express themselves on whatever platform they wish, free and clear of government interference, particularly when the government's granted for interfering, and I think this is where we take heart from the hearing today, when the government's reason for interfering is we don't like the viewpoint or the content that's going to be expressed through that platform. That is the core First Amendment value that our framers enshrined in the very First Amendment in our Constitution to protect freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom to create, freedom to share, and freedom to learn from other people. That leaves the only other thing the government had to say in court today, which is that this act could somehow be sustained solely because of data security concerns that have been expressed in various ways in various legislator statements. We just don't think that's correct, and so one thing I'd like to emphasize is that whatever data TikTok has from users by way of that relationship, that creator-publisher relationship, is no different from the data that creators would give to Instagram, YouTube, any other platform to express themselves on. There's no difference between the data in one place versus the other, and also the data that's shared is done so on a voluntary basis. So one of the justices today expressed the concern about paternalism that comes from the government in this case, whether it be to protect us from ideas or to protect us from choices we might make to best express ourselves and share data about ourselves with our publisher. We think that's our choice to make. It's not the government's decision or its right to make that choice for us. So today, and perhaps the main event, is that I have five of the creator petitioners here with me today, and I think I really think it's important for you to hear from them, because that's the face of this case, certainly from the American creator perspective, are the people that find TikTok an invaluable resource for self-expression, communication, and exchange of ideas. And so I'm going to introduce them and let them come up, I think one by one, and introduce themselves to you and then be available later. So their names are Chloe Joy Sexton, Topher Townsend, Paul Tran, Stephen King, and Tim Martin. These are five of the eight creator petitioners in this case that were before the court today, and I believe most, if not all, in the courtroom today. So I'll let them come up in whatever order they wish and introduce themselves to you. Hello everybody, my name is Paul Tran. I want to first thank the Supreme Court for hearing our argument today. As co-founder of Love & Pebble, a small business built on the foundation of American entrepreneurship, I pray that the Supreme Court of America does what is right in protecting us. This isn't just about our business, it's about our fundamental right that makes our nation great. Our story embodies the American dream. My wife and I built Love & Pebble from the ground up using TikTok to share our passion, connect with people, with Americans all across the country, something no other platform has allowed us to do. I have a two-year-old daughter, and when I look at her, I think about the America I want her to inherit. Do we want to teach the next generation that the solution to our challenges is to restrict freedom rather than protect it? Do we want to show them that it is acceptable for the government to decide which platforms Americans can or cannot use to express themselves and build their businesses? The First Amendment isn't a relic of the past, it's a living promise that must be defended in this digital age. By banning TikTok, we're not just removing an app, we're setting a precedence that threatens the very freedoms our country was built upon. Free enterprise, free expression, and the freedom to innovate without unnecessary government intervention. Love & Pebble stands here represents more than just my family's dream, it represents the dreams of countless Americans and entrepreneurs who deserve the right to choose how they reach their customers and share our stories, real American lives. There must be a solution that protects both our national interests and our constitutional rights. My daughter deserves to grow up in a country where entrepreneurship thrives, where speech remains free, and where the government protects rather than restricts our constitutional right. The America I believe in doesn't shut down platforms for communication and commerce, it innovates, it adapts, and it finds solutions that preserve both security and liberty. That's the America I'm fighting for and that's America I want my daughter to inherit. So I pray that the Supreme Court hears the voices of myself and the millions of Americans. I pray that they protect our First Amendment right to use a platform of my choice and I pray that they save TikTok. Thank you. Chloe, you wanna go next? Hi, I'm Chloe Joyce Sexton and I'm a plaintiff in this case from Memphis, Tennessee. In 2020, I was fired from my job after telling my employer that I was pregnant. I was also struggling to care for my mother who I eventually lost to brain cancer. I then began raising my seven-year-old sister. I started creating TikTok videos to financially support my family and as a creative outlet where I discussed everything from parenting and grief to my love of baking. I could never have expected the outpouring of love and support from the community on TikTok. My videos went viral and allowed me to jumpstart my business, Chloe's Giant Cookies. I have now shipped thousands of cookies all over the world and even published a cookbook. As a small business without a lot of capital, I rely almost entirely on TikTok to market my products. To say TikTok changed my life is an understatement. TikTok is the place where people told me I could do so much more with my life than I ever believed. I am a plaintiff in this lawsuit not just for myself but for all of the women who through TikTok found their dreams and financial independence while taking care of their families and their children. A TikTok ban would place these women, including myself, in true financial jeopardy. It would destroy both my business and the community that means so much to me. No other platform can replace it. I have tried posting the same exact content on other social media apps without anywhere near the same success. I thank the Supreme Court for hearing our argument today and I hope that the justices will protect my First Amendment right to continue to use the platform of my choice. Thank you. Hi everybody, my name is Topher Townsend. I'm a plaintiff in this case from Philadelphia, Mississippi. I served in the U.S. Air Force and now run a nonprofit called Standing Word Ministries, dedicated to promoting knowledge about the Bible. I also work as a hip-hop artist focusing on topics such as faith and patriotism. So I started creating TikToks back in 2019 as a way to creatively express my political views and to share fun facts about the Bible. I found TikTok to be a much more civil platform for discourse about important issues than other social media apps, allowing me to build a community and exchange ideas. TikTok is also an unparalleled platform for collaborating with other musical artists and promoting my music. My music really took off after I started sharing it on TikTok, even though I've been sharing to other platforms for many years previously. I largely credit TikTok with the fact that my music has been streamed over 100 million times and I've climbed the Billboard charts multiple times, even achieving a number one Billboard hit with my song, The Patriot. See, the streams mean income for my family and the joy of knowing my music is reaching people around the world. See, without TikTok, I will lose an important platform to share my views and engage with others in a way I have not been able to do on other social media sites. And my 2.6 million followers around the world would also lose access to vital content related to faith and current events. As a veteran and American who values free speech, I find it disturbing that the government is closing a form of expression for so many Americans. This ban betrays the values that I sought to protect while serving in the armed forces. I thank the Supreme Court for hearing our argument today. I hope that the justices will protect my First Amendment right to continue to use the platform of my choice. And last but not least, we are not for sale. Thank you. If any members of the media would like to speak with any of our creators to set up individual interviews, please let me know. Otherwise, thank you for coming. Thank you all for joining me today.