Supreme Court Seems Poised to Uphold Law That Could Ban TikTok
最高法院似乎准备支持可能禁止 TikTok 的法律

The Supreme Court seemed inclined on Friday to uphold a law that could effectively ban TikTok, the wildly popular app used by half of the country.
最高法院似乎倾向于支持一项法律，该法律可能会有效地禁止 TikTok，这款在全国一半人口中广受欢迎的应用程序。

Even as several justices expressed concerns that the law was in tension with the First Amendment, a majority appeared satisfied that it was aimed not at TikTok’s speech rights but rather at its ownership, which the government says is controlled by China. The law requires the app’s parent company, ByteDance, to sell TikTok by Jan. 19. If it does not, the law requires the app to be shut down.
尽管几位法官对该法律与第一修正案之间的紧张关系表示担忧，但大多数人似乎满意于该法律并非针对 TikTok 的言论权利，而是针对其所有权，政府称其由中国控制。该法律要求该应用的母公司字节跳动在 1 月 19 日之前出售 TikTok。如果不出售，该法律要求关闭该应用。

The government offered two rationales for the law: combating covert disinformation from China and barring it from harvesting private information about Americans. The court was divided over the first justification. But several justices seemed troubled by the possibility that China could use data culled from the app for espionage or blackmail.
政府为该法律提供了两个理由：打击来自中国的隐秘虚假信息，以及阻止其获取关于美国人的私人信息。法庭对第一个理由存在分歧。但几位法官似乎对中国可能利用该应用收集的数据进行间谍活动或敲诈感到担忧。

“Congress and the president were concerned,” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said, “that China was accessing information about millions of Americans, tens of millions of Americans, including teenagers, people in their 20s.”
“国会和总统都很担心，”大法官布雷特·M·卡瓦诺说，“中国正在获取数百万美国人的信息，包括青少年和 20 多岁的人。”

That data, he added, could be used “over time to develop spies, to turn people, to blackmail people, people who a generation from now will be working in the F.B.I. or the C.I.A. or in the State Department.”
他说，这些数据可以“随着时间的推移，用来培养间谍、策反人员、勒索人，这些人在一代人之后将会在联邦调查局、中央情报局或国务院工作。”

Noel J. Francisco, a lawyer for TikTok, said he did not dispute those risks. But he said the government could address them by means short of effectively ordering the app to, as he put it, “go dark.”
诺埃尔·J·弗朗西斯科，TikTok 的律师，表示他并不否认这些风险。但他说，政府可以通过其他手段来解决这些问题，而不必像他所说的那样，实际上命令该应用程序“关闭”。

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. appeared unpersuaded.
首席大法官约翰·G·罗伯茨 Jr. 看起来并不信服。

“Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the ultimate parent is, in fact, subject to doing intelligence work for the Chinese government?” Chief Justice Roberts asked.
“我们难道应该忽视最终母公司实际上是要为中国政府进行情报工作这一事实吗？”首席法官罗伯茨问道。

The court has put the case on an exceptionally fast track, and it is likely to rule by the end of next week. Its decision will be among the most consequential of the digital age, as TikTok has become a cultural phenomenon powered by a sophisticated algorithm that provides entertainment and information touching on nearly every facet of American life.
法院已将此案置于异常快速的审理程序中，预计将在下周末之前作出裁决。其决定将是数字时代最具影响力的裁决之一，因为 TikTok 已成为一种文化现象，依靠复杂的算法提供娱乐和信息，涉及几乎每一个美国生活的方面。

The Supreme Court has repeatedly taken up cases on the application of free speech principles to giant technology platforms, though it has stopped short of issuing definitive rulings. It has also wrestled with the application of the First Amendment to foreign speakers, ruling that they are generally without constitutional protection, at least for speech delivered abroad.
最高法院多次审理关于言论自由原则在大型科技平台上的应用案件，尽管尚未作出明确裁决。它还对第一修正案在外国发言者身上的适用性进行了探讨，裁定他们通常不享有宪法保护，至少对于在国外发表的言论而言。

Justice Elena Kagan acknowledged that TikTok, which is an American company, has First Amendment rights. But she asked, “How are those First Amendment rights really being implicated here?”
大法官埃琳娜·卡根承认，TikTok 是一家美国公司，享有第一修正案的权利。但她问道：“这些第一修正案的权利在这里究竟是如何受到影响的？”

If ByteDance divests TikTok, Justice Kagan said, the American company remains free to say whatever it likes.
如果字节跳动剥离 TikTok，卡根法官表示，这家美国公司仍然可以自由发表任何言论。

Jeffrey L. Fisher, a lawyer for users of the app, said his clients should not be required to move to other platforms, using an analogy involving newspapers.
杰弗里·L·费舍尔，一位代表该应用用户的律师表示，他的客户不应被要求转移到其他平台，并用报纸作类比。

“It’s not enough to tell a writer, well, you can’t publish an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal because you can publish it in The New York Times instead,” he said, adding that “TikTok has a distinct editorial and publication perspective.”
“告诉一位作家，‘你不能在《华尔街日报》上发表社论，因为你可以在《纽约时报》上发表’是不够的，”他说，并补充道，“TikTok 有其独特的编辑和出版视角。”

The law, enacted in April with broad bipartisan support, said urgent measures were needed because ByteDance was effectively controlled by the Chinese government, which could use the app to harvest sensitive information about Americans and to spread covert disinformation.
该法律于四月通过，得到了广泛的两党支持，指出由于字节跳动实际上受到中国政府的控制，因此需要采取紧急措施，因为该应用可能被用来收集有关美国人的敏感信息并传播隐秘的虚假信息。

Saying that the law violates both its First Amendment rights and those of its 170 million American users, TikTok has urged the court to strike down the law. It has repeatedly argued that a sale is impossible, in part because China would bar the export of ByteDance’s algorithm.
TikTok 表示该法律侵犯了其第一修正案权利以及 1.7 亿美国用户的权利，已敦促法院撤销该法律。它反复辩称，出售是不可能的，部分原因是中国将禁止字节跳动的算法出口。

TikTok has also contended that there is no public proof that the U.S. government’s concerns about Chinese interference have come to pass in the United States. But the government has claimed in court filings that the app has acceded to Beijing’s demands to censor content outside China.
TikTok 还辩称，没有公开证据表明美国政府对中国干预的担忧在美国得到了证实。但政府在法庭文件中声称，该应用已屈从于北京的要求，审查中国以外的内容。

Several justices seemed to be searching for a narrow ground on which to uphold the law, and they leaned toward the government’s interest in protecting Americans’ data.
几位法官似乎在寻找一个狭窄的依据来支持这项法律，他们倾向于支持政府保护美国人数据的利益。

Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the U.S. solicitor general, defended the law on that ground, saying that China “has a voracious appetite to get its hands on as much information about Americans as possible, and that creates a potent weapon here.”
美国首席律师伊丽莎白·B·普雷洛加在此基础上为该法律辩护，称中国“对获取尽可能多的关于美国人的信息有着贪婪的渴望，这在这里形成了一种强大的武器。”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. expressed concerns about what he said was “an enormously powerful, popular application” that is “gathering an arsenal of information about American citizens.”
大法官塞缪尔·阿利托（Samuel A. Alito Jr.）对他所称的“一个极其强大、受欢迎的应用程序”表示担忧，称该应用程序“正在收集关于美国公民的大量信息。”

The court was more divided on the question of whether potential covert disinformation or propaganda justified the ban.
法院在是否潜在的隐蔽虚假信息或宣传可以证明禁令合理的问题上意见更加分歧。

“Look,” Mr. Francisco said, “everybody manipulates content. There are lots of people who think CNN, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, are manipulating their content.”
“听着，”弗朗西斯科先生说，“每个人都在操控内容。很多人认为 CNN、福克斯新闻、《华尔街日报》和《纽约时报》都在操控他们的内容。”

Outside the court, some TikTok creators streamed the live audio from arguments to their followers, answering questions, expressing fear at the looming ban and holding onto small hand warmers in the 20-degree weather.
在法庭外，一些 TikTok 创作者向他们的粉丝直播了辩论的音频，回答问题，表达对即将到来的禁令的恐惧，并在 20 度的天气中握着小暖手器。

Andrea Celeste Olde, who traveled from Bakersfield, Calif., with her husband to speak out against the law, said the platform helped her begin a new career as a social media monetization coach after she spent 10 years at home raising three children. “TikTok is where I created my community,” she said. “I have made friendships. I have business partners. That’s how we connect.”
安德里亚·塞莱斯特·奥尔德与丈夫从加利福尼亚州贝克斯菲尔德出发，前来反对这项法律，她表示这个平台帮助她在家抚养三个孩子十年后，开始了新的社交媒体变现教练职业。“抖音是我建立社区的地方，”她说。“我结交了朋友，找到了商业伙伴。这就是我们连接的方式。”

Other avid users of the app said it gave them unique business opportunities. They rarely have to pay to gain enough followers to bolster sales with eye-catching videos, unlike on other platforms, said Sarah Baus, a beauty creator with nearly 800,000 followers. “TikTok has allowed me to grow my audience a lot faster,” she said.
其他热衷于该应用的用户表示，它为他们提供了独特的商业机会。与其他平台不同，他们很少需要支付费用来获得足够的关注者，以通过引人注目的视频提升销售，拥有近 80 万粉丝的美妆创作者莎拉·鲍斯（Sarah Baus）说道。“抖音让我能够更快地扩大我的受众，”她说。

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in early December rejected a challenge to the law, ruling that it was justified by national security concerns.
美国哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院的三名法官小组在 12 月初驳回了对该法律的挑战，裁定该法律是出于国家安全考虑而合理的。

“The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg wrote for the majority, joined by Judge Neomi Rao. “Here the government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.”
“第一修正案的存在是为了保护美国的言论自由，”道格拉斯·H·金斯堡法官代表大多数意见写道，尼奥米·拉奥法官也参与其中。“在这里，政府的行动完全是为了保护这种自由不受外国对手国家的侵害，并限制该对手在美国收集个人数据的能力。”

In a concurring opinion, Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan acknowledged that under the law’s ban, “many Americans may lose access to an outlet for expression, a source of community and even a means of income.”
在一份附带意见中，首席法官斯里·斯里尼瓦桑承认，根据法律的禁令，“许多美国人可能会失去表达的渠道、社区的来源，甚至是收入的手段。”

“Congress judged it necessary to assume that risk,” he wrote, “given the grave national security threats it perceived. And because the record reflects that Congress’s decision was considered, consistent with longstanding regulatory practice, and devoid of an institutional aim to suppress particular messages or ideas, we are not in a position to set it aside.”
“国会认为有必要承担这一风险，”他写道，“鉴于其所感知的严重国家安全威胁。并且由于记录显示国会的决定是经过深思熟虑的，符合长期的监管惯例，并且没有压制特定信息或思想的机构目的，我们无法将其置于一旁。”

Echoing a point made in an appeals court ruling upholding the law, Justice Kavanaugh said the law had historical analogues. “There is a long tradition of preventing foreign ownership or control of media in the United States,” he said.
卡瓦诺法官回应了上诉法院裁定支持该法律的观点，表示该法律有历史上的类似案例。“在美国，有着防止外国拥有或控制媒体的悠久传统，”他说。

ByteDance has said that more than half of the company is owned by global institutional investors and that the Chinese government does not have a direct or indirect ownership stake in TikTok or ByteDance.
字节跳动表示，超过一半的公司由全球机构投资者持有，中国政府在 TikTok 或字节跳动中没有直接或间接的所有权股份。

The government’s brief acknowledged that ByteDance is incorporated in the Cayman Islands but said that its headquarters are in Beijing and that it is primarily operated from offices in China.
政府的简报承认字节跳动注册在开曼群岛，但表示其总部位于北京，主要在中国的办公室运营。

The deadline set by the law falls one day before the inauguration of President-elect Donald J. Trump. In an unusual brief last month, nominally in support of neither party, he asked the justices to temporarily block the law so that he could address the matter once in office.
法律设定的截止日期恰好在当选总统唐纳德·J·特朗普就职典礼的前一天。上个月，他以一种不偏向任何一方的异常简报形式请求法官暂时阻止该法律，以便他在上任后能处理此事。

“President Trump opposes banning TikTok in the United States at this juncture,” the brief said, “and seeks the ability to resolve the issues at hand through political means once he takes office.”
“特朗普总统在此时反对在美国禁止 TikTok，”简报中表示，“并希望在他上任后通过政治手段解决当前的问题。”

Justice Kavanaugh asked Mr. Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, what would happen on Jan. 19 if the court ruled against the company in the meantime.
卡瓦诺法官问 TikTok 的律师弗朗西斯科，如果法院在此期间裁定该公司败诉，1 月 19 日会发生什么。

“As I understand it,” Mr. Fransisco said, “we go dark.” He added that the court should temporarily block the law to “buy everybody a little breathing space.”
“据我了解，”弗朗西斯科先生说，“我们将暂停。”他补充说，法院应该暂时阻止该法律，以“给大家一点喘息的空间。”

The law allows the president to extend the deadline for 90 days in limited circumstances. But that provision does not appear to apply, as it requires the president to certify to Congress that there has been significant progress toward a sale backed by “relevant binding legal agreements.”
该法律允许总统在有限情况下将截止日期延长 90 天。但该条款似乎不适用，因为它要求总统向国会证明在“相关的具有约束力的法律协议”支持下，销售已取得显著进展。

Ms. Prelogar, the government lawyer defending the law, said any shutdown starting on Jan. 19 need not be permanent. That idea intrigued Justice Alito.
普雷洛加女士，代表政府辩护该法律的律师表示，任何从 1 月 19 日开始的停摆不必是永久性的。这个想法引起了阿利托法官的兴趣。

“So if we were to affirm and TikTok were forced to cease operations on Jan. 19,” Justice Alito said, “you say that there could be divestiture after that point, and TikTok could again continue to operate.”
“所以如果我们确认，TikTok 被迫在 1 月 19 日停止运营，”阿利托法官说，“你们说在那之后可能会进行剥离，TikTok 可以再次继续运营。”

Minho Kim and Sapna Maheshwari contributed reporting.
金敏浩和萨普娜·马赫什瓦里进行了报道。