Doesn’t the Constitution mean what it says? Doesn’t no law mean no law? Regrettably, today, no law means whatever the court ...

WASHINGTON − Some of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok to sell cookies, promote books by Black authors, comment on sports, advocate for sexual assault survivors and more say the stakes couldn’t ...

"It’s a strong stand for the First Amendment and against arbitrary censorship. We will work with President Trump on a long-term solution that keeps TikTok in the United States." Trump made his promise ...

Even as the Supreme Court upheld Congress' mandate that TikTok's Chinese owner sell the platform or shut it down, the First ...

This conclusion will disappoint the app’s 170 million users in the United States. But it reflects ... holding that it passed First Amendment muster. TikTok then asked the Supreme Court to ...

“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech or of the press…” — First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution During the oral ... out of and within the United States. All of this is ...

However, on Jan. 17, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law, allowing TikTok's departure from the United States. For those who may not know, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution ...

I was having a conversation with my Stanford colleague Diego Zambrano, and this perspective on the TikTok case emerged. I'm not positive it's a sound perspective; but I thought I'd pass it along ...

A TikTok ban on hypothetical grounds of a national security threat directly undermines the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech. So far, the United States government has not made ...

TikTok’s day of reckoning in the US has arrived. On Friday, the United States Supreme ... will determine whether the US Constitution’s First Amendment right to free speech is overruled by ...

On Friday, the Supreme Court delivered a sweeping, unanimous broadside against the First Amendment ... ban on TikTok, the fourth most popular social media network in the United States.

This ruling, which effectively overruled the Pentagon Papers case, turns First Amendment jurisprudence on its head. The courts have long recognized the freedom of speech as a natural human right.