This petition is designed to be a pledge to send the following letter to your representatives, state and national, to express your concern about the RESTRICT Act and TikTok ban. PLEASE NOTE that the last paragraph includes optional language that may be altered to suit the individual’s level of commitment in response to the RESTRICT Act. Please delete it, or modify it prior to copying and pasting it into the contact fields.

You can find your state and national representatives via zip code at: https://www.270towin.com/elected-officials/. Each representative’s website should have a “contact” feature that will allow you to copy and paste the following letter into the message field. For example, to send this letter to Biden/Harris, go to: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/, and paste your modified letter in the “WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY?” field.

#tiktokban #restrictact #stopthetiktokban #stoptherestrictact

Dear [Representative],

I write to express my deep concern about the RESTRICT Act, which could restrict access to the internet and limit free speech. As you may know, the internet has become a traditional forum for expression and a vital tool for communicating with people around the world. The Supreme Court has recognized this in Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017), where the Court found that “A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more. The Court has sought to protect the right to speak in this spatial context.” Id. at 1735. The Court went on to write, “While in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views, today the answer is clear. It is cyberspace—the ‘vast democratic forums of the Internet’ in general, [citation omitted] and social media in particular,” noting “on Twitter, users can petition their elected representatives and otherwise engage with them in a direct manner. Indeed, Governors in all 50 States and almost every Member of Congress have set up accounts for this purpose.” Id. ; see also Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2019) (vacated as moot in Biden v. Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ., 141 S. Ct. 1220 (2021) and rev’d on other grounds in Knight First Amendment Inst. at Colum. Univ. v. Biden, No. 18-1691, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 35273 (2d Cir. May 26, 2021)).

The Court treated social media platforms as public/designated public fora, the restriction of which may only be lawfully imposed under intermediate scrutiny, meaning that the restriction is presumed unconstitutional unless the government can show that the restriction is viewpoint and content neutral, demonstrative of a significant or important government interest, is narrowly tailored to serve the government’s interest, and leaves open alternative channels of communication and expression. Noteworthy, was Alito’s concurrence, in which he telegraphed that he rejects the notion that “cyberspace” is analogous to a physical space that acts as a marketplace of ideas. While Alito’s comments are tailored to address access by sex offenders, his concurrence reveals the belief that physical space and the communication pertaining to literary, artistic, political, or scientific ideas is not equivalent or analogous to the virtual space that undeniably dominates exchange of those ideas. Thus, if the RESTRICT Act passes, the current SCOTUS will use it as a means of further eroding political freedom, as they are now doing with individual freedom.

I urge you to oppose the RESTRICT Act and to support legislation that protects internet freedom and ensures that people can express their opinions and access information without fear of censorship or restriction. At bottom, the RESTRICT Act—and similar laws/legislation—is not about security issues and preventing China from mining personal data, because Meta (Facebook) and its progeny, as well as Twitter, Amazon, etc., already present security issues and capture personal data. TikTok is the target of the RESTRICT Act because young people are using it to organize and engage in political behavior, as well as expose the fact that corporate capitalism and government, including Democrats, are the sort of bedfellows that push this republic toward an Orwellian reality. The RESTRICT Act is the Patriot Act on steroids and the opportunity for abuse obvious.

Many accounts on TikTok track and expose questionable financial activity by politicians who sit on committees and make trades directly related to the subject-matter of the committee in which they participate or control. Many accounts expose the fact that politicians are heavily invested in Meta, and that Meta has led the charge against a government ban on TikTok. These are conflicts that directly challenge notions of integrity and ethics in government. The popularity of demanding that politicians cease to engage in financial activity while in office was the result, largely, of TikTok. The popularity of the call to reduce or end qualified immunity was the result, largely, of TikTok. TikTok is “bad for government” because it mingles well-reasoned political videos, designed to convey key-points in under a minute, with videos of animals, dancing, or gaming. When gamers, for example, realize that the RESTRICT Act can be used to restrict their access to games and online gaming platforms, politicians will have actualized and, in some sense radicalized, a whole group of people who now have nothing better to do with their time than weed-out political corruption.

In Packingham, the Court understood, “While we now may be coming to the realization that the Cyber Age is a revolution of historic proportions, we cannot appreciate yet its full dimensions and vast potential to alter how we think, express ourselves, and define who we want to be.” Id. at 1736. This must be the view of the politicians I support moving forward and I will not support a politician who disagrees with the proposition that the internet and social media platforms should be allowed to flourish with as few restrictions as possible except those necessary to prevent illegal conduct and tangible harm to individuals. I do not support an attack on TikTok any more than I support an attack on Fox News, imperfect as both media platforms may be. An attack on the internet and social media—particularly TikTok because of the success it has had in rallying young people and challenging corruption in its myriad forms—is an attack on ideas and is dangerous to the idea of a republic founded on the idea of democracy.

[OPTIONAL] If the RESTRICT Act passes, I am committed to deleting all accounts related to Meta, e.g., Facebook, Instagram, etc., and pledge to never contribute to/vote for another Democrat in any local, state, or national election. If the RESTRICT Act passes, it will be irrefutable evidence that Democrats believe more in corporate greed than they do in freedom, fairness, equality, and justice.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

References:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/two-new-bills-tiktok-and-beyond-data-act-and-restrict-act​

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15​

https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-tiktok-ban-021414e9-86da-402c-8fef-59294d08416d?signed=true​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/27/tiktok-china-congress-hearings-social-media/