A ban on Tik Tok would violate free speech
The right to receive information is as protected as the right to speak
The United States Supreme Court recognized a First Amendment right to receive information in Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965). The right to receive is indispensable to critical thinking. As John Stuart Mill explained in On Liberty, most of what we believe consists in finding alternative ideas or conclusions less convincing. Truth is sharpened and honed with repeated jousts with falsehoods. Critical thinking atrophies without regular exercise in identifying and discrediting propaganda, ad hominem attacks, or illogical thinking.
Suppose Tik Tok is an arm of the Chinese government. So what? Voice of America speaks for the United States. The BBC speaks for the United Kingdom. Listeners can make their own judgments about credibility based on what is said and the probable ulterior motives of the speakers.
The idea that propaganda works is nonsense. The persons who believe propaganda would believe the same thing without the propaganda. It does not change minds but simply reinforces what is already believed. Fox News viewers would believe the same thing if television were banned. Ditto for the MSNBC audience. If Chinese propaganda were so effective, why do Chinese leaders fiercely resist free and fair elections to office? Its because the Chinese leaders believe the Chinese people disbelieve the propaganda and would vote them out of office at the first opportunity.
The idea of a Tik Tok ban is the lazy man’s approach to the drivel that proliferates on the platform. Tik Tok flourishes because American culture has plunged to the hormonal on steroids. Tik Tok would have no users if American culture honored the thinker and the march of the mind as the nation’s glory. But scapegoating is more satisfying than acknowledging unpleasant truths.