Judge temporarily halts Trump administration's TikTok ban

A U.S. federal judge on Sunday partially granted TikTok's preliminary injunction against a Trump administration order to ban downloads of the app, though more sweeping restrictions are still on track to take effect in November.

In his order, Judge Carl Nichols of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia said the temporary relief does not cover a pending service shutdown "at this time," reports The New York Times.

"We're pleased that the court agreed with our legal arguments and issued an injunction preventing the implementation of the TikTok app ban," a spokesman for TikTok told the publication following news of the decision. "We will continue defending our rights for the benefit of our community and employees. At the same time, we will also maintain our ongoing dialogue with the government to turn our proposal, which the president gave his preliminary approval to last weekend, into an agreement."

TikTok is facing a multifaceted attack from the Trump administration, which views the Chinese-owned company as a threat to national security. The Commerce Department in September announced the app would be pulled from app stores like Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store on Sept. 20. A more comprehensive ban set for Nov. 12 will prohibit American internet carriers from handling TikTok's traffic, rendering the app useless.

To avoid a shutdown, TikTok owner ByteDance has been seeking a buyer for its U.S. operations in compliance with the Trump administration's vague demands. A tentative arrangement with Oracle and a host of financial partners was reached on Sept. 17, leading Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to extend the September download ban to 11:59 p.m. today.

TikTok last week filed a request for an emergency injunction as it worked toward a permanent deal. Judge Nichols' decision came down less than five hours before deadline.

The Commerce Department in a statement on Sunday said it will comply with the injunction, but noted Trump's order was "fully consistent with the law and promotes legitimate national security interests."

26 Comments

GeorgeBMac 8 Years · 11421 comments

About 4 years ago

"Show us your Facts please Mr. President"

"Uhh, what are those? What are facts? We don't need no stinkin facts! Never liked them. Never used them. Lies and smear campaigns are better than truth and facts any day!"

georgie01 8 Years · 437 comments

GeorgeBMac said:

"Show us your Facts please Mr. President"
"Uhh, what are those? What are facts? We don't need no stinkin facts! Never liked them. Never used them. Lies and smear campaigns are better than truth and facts any day!"

Yes, because a president is not privy to more information than the average citizen. And in the unlikely event a president knows something the citizens don’t, he is obligated to tell them everything. If he doesn’t tell them everything, perhaps because every single president in the history of the US knows that certain information is not suitable for public awareness, then it’s basically the same thing as the president not having any reason.

The thing that concerns me is not a TikTok ban but that so many politicians and organisations and citizens are wilfully blind toward China’s government, despite there being overwhelming evidence that they are not passive and innocent and are a real threat to the US.

spheric 9 Years · 2705 comments

georgie01 said:

GeorgeBMac said:

"Show us your Facts please Mr. President"
"Uhh, what are those? What are facts? We don't need no stinkin facts! Never liked them. Never used them. Lies and smear campaigns are better than truth and facts any day!"

Yes, because a president is not privy to more information than the average citizen. And in the unlikely event a president knows something the citizens don’t, he is obligated to tell them everything. If he doesn’t tell them everything, perhaps because every single president in the history of the US knows that certain information is not suitable for public awareness, then it’s basically the same thing as the president not having any reason.

I see your sarcasm, and raise you: Trump's twitter feed. Next round: Bob Woodward's tapes.

The man is absolutely notoriously resistant to ANY advice or info that contradict his bizarre little world view, be it from economic advisers, the State Department, the CDC, epidemiologists, or the fucking Pentagon.

He has NO idea about TikTok; he just saw a way to maybe funnel a check through a charity into his own pocket, to spend on reëlection campaigning.

leavingthebigg 11 Years · 1291 comments

A Trump-appointed Federal judge decides to block the ban two days after https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/09/26/doj-opposes-tiktok-request-stall-download-ban-calls-bytedance-ceo-mouthpiece-for-ccp and five hours before the ban was scheduled to take effect is just another act in this sh*t show.

Rayz2016 8 Years · 6957 comments

georgie01 said:

GeorgeBMac said:

"Show us your Facts please Mr. President"
"Uhh, what are those? What are facts? We don't need no stinkin facts! Never liked them. Never used them. Lies and smear campaigns are better than truth and facts any day!"

Yes, because a president is not privy to more information than the average citizen. And in the unlikely event a president knows something the citizens don’t, he is obligated to tell them everything. If he doesn’t tell them everything, perhaps because every single president in the history of the US knows that certain information is not suitable for public awareness, then it’s basically the same thing as the president not having any reason.

The thing that concerns me is not a TikTok ban but that so many politicians and organisations and citizens are wilfully blind toward China’s government, despite there being overwhelming evidence that they are not passive and innocent and are a real threat to the US.

Fascinating that you think China is a bigger threat to the US than the current president of the US. Fixing the sh*tshow that is the current administration should be the top priority before worrying about anything else.