Dan Bishop: “This is not the first time that restricting speech has been pursued in the interests of national security. In fact, in 5…”

“This is not the first time that restricting speech has been pursued in the interests of national security. In fact, in 5 days' time, next Monday, I will go to the Supreme Court for the first time where I will attend an oral argument in the case of Murphy v. Missouri. It is a case where agents from the White House, the Department of Justice, and other Federal agencies embedded themselves with American social media companies to manipulate what could appear on social media: expression by the American people. It has been described by the lower court as the most massive attack on free speech in U.S. history. Even as that pends for a decision by the Supreme Court, Congress would in this legislation say, in effect: Hold my beer. I don't use TikTok. I think it is ill-advised to do so. Members of this body are famous on TikTok, and I think that is unwise. Be that as it may, I respect the choices of 170 million users in the United States. The Trump administration attempted to ban TikTok in 2020. It was held that it couldn't do so in two court decisions because under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, he is subject to the Berman amendment, passed in 1988 by this body, to provide that in the interest of dealing with hostile foreign powers, the President can do all sorts of things with respect to commerce, but he cannot ban the free flow of information across international boundaries. I have heard that described as a gap in the law, but it is a feature.…”