Can freedom of speech or freedom of expression be restricted by public concerns, such as national security and mental health? Are there enough justifications for those practices to be executed? One example that is worth looking into would be the recent restrictions on TikTok in the United States.
According to National Public Radio, on January 19, 2025, the U.S. government banned TikTok in the United States through the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA). The ban was due to national security concerns, since ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company, may access sensitive user information such as location information through TikTok and share data with the Chinese Communist Party. According to the New York Times, concerns that the Chinese government may potentially misuse data and manipulate information to sway Americans surged throughout the nation. These concerns altogether fostered the Congress to pass laws that prohibited TikTok until it is sold to a government-approved buyer. Throughout history, China and the United States have long been competing in military and economic aspects. However, improvements in technology and acquisition of information have stressed the foremost importance these days.
Therefore, the United States should be aware of the fact that keeping sensitive personal information is necessary especially in social media platforms. Concerns that TikTok may keep track of sensitive user data or China could use TikTok’s content recommendations to fuel misinformation are arousing confusion in the United States. National security is a very sensitive issue to a country, as it may threaten all individuals in the country and bring chaos in various fields and aspects. Thus, posing restrictions on TikTok is justified in that it protects the safety of citizens and ensures that the nation does not falter.
Some argue that TikTok allows millions of users to creatively express themselves and share their talents, and banning TikTok is violating free speech rights. However, TikTok is not the only platform to express oneself; there are plenty of other options as well. Some who disagree with restricting TikTok claim that many small businesses and creators rely on it for marketing and income, so prohibiting TikTok may cause significant economic losses. However, even though posing restrictions on TikTok in the United States has negative effects, national security should be the foremost priority to consider.
Another example to discuss whether freedom of expression can be limited by public concerns would be the removal of beauty filters on Instagram.
According to NDTV, from January 14, 2025, Instagram no longer supports third-party augmented reality(AR) filters. It means that all AR effects created by third parties other than Meta will be unavailable to Instagram users. Instagram justified its removal of AR filters by concerns about mental health and body image and to promote authenticity. It claims that filters create an illusion of perfection, which contributes to low self-esteem and unhealthy comparisons.
However, the fact that Instagram is not removing its own-made filters but only removing those made by third parties seems inconsistent with its claim. If Instagram were to reduce the illusion of perfection, then all filters should have been removed. Also, many users can still use other applications to perfect their appearances, so removing filters is not a fundamental solution for addressing mental health issues and is just violating freedom of expression.
When it comes to the topic of freedom of expression, we mostly agree that it sometimes conflicts with public concerns. Where this agreement usually ends, is on the decisions we make. For the case of restricting TikTok, freedom of expression should be restricted to some degree due to national security concerns. However, the case of restricting filters in Instagram is not an optimal way to address the issue of mental health, and is only restricting freedom of expression. How these restrictions are justified depends on the context they are in. Therefore, we should always have critical thinking to make a good balance between freedom of expression and public concerns.
