DV Journal

As the Pennsylvania General Assembly considers a blanket ban on TikTok for government-owned devices, many of the Democratic legislators who support the bill are still sharing Zach King magic tricks and giggling baby videos on the popular platform.

Eleven Pennsylvania Senate Democrats maintain a presence on the app owned by ByteDance, a Chinese-based company with ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

Some Democrats, including Montgomery’s Sen. Katie Muth, have accounts without any content. Others cross-post videos from Instagram or Facebook to TikTok.

Then there’s Delaware Valley Democratic Sens. Carolyn Comitta and John Kane.

Both Chester Democrats maintain a heavy presence on TikTok. Comitta has both campaign and Senate TikTok accounts. Both have posted videos from inside their Capitol offices. There’s even a goofy video of Kane walking away from policy positions that he opposes while a comedy sketch criticizing a so-called toxic person plays in the background.

A Kane spokesperson told DVJournal the senator turned to TikTok to connect with younger voters.

“This effort has been enjoyable, exciting, and empowering for many young people who now feel acknowledged by their government and informed about current events,” said Drew Henderson. He promised Kane didn’t use a government-owned device for TikTok. “With numerous colleges and universities in Sen. Kane’s district, we have found TikTok valuable to connect with young constituents, meeting them where they are digitally.”

Despite using the app for messaging, the entire Democrat Senate Caucus voted for Senate Bill 379, the TikTok ban bill. TikTok users are banned from accessing the app from a state-owned wireless network.

The House version of SB 379 went further. It expanded the TikTok ban to include devices and wireless networks owned by local governments and school districts.

“I believe the House amendments make SB 379 stronger by expanding the bill’s scope to include other foreign adversaries hostile to the United States, such as Russia,” Sen. Tracy Pennycuick (R-Montgomery) told DVJournal. She was one of the primary co-sponsors of the original bill. “Apps, like TikTok, present serious security risks, especially when installed on state-owned devices that have direct access to sensitive information. I am optimistic that this bill will pass in the House.”

The bill sits in the House Appropriations Committee.

It received initial support last week in a bipartisan 139-62 vote. Among supporters were 11 Democrats with active TikTok accounts. That includes Appropriations Chair Rep. Jordan Harris of Philadelphia and Delaware County Rep. Jenn O’Mara.

You could say the state legislature was behind with the times on TikTok. Multiple state agencies banned the app years ago.

State Treasurer Stacy Garrity booted TikTok from her department’s devices in late 2022 following an internal review.

“Our ban has been fully effective,” she told DVJournal. “No employees are able to download TikTok onto Treasury devices, and no devices on the Treasury network can access TikTok.”

Other departments with a TikTok ban are state courts, the attorney general’s office, and the auditor general’s office.

And, despite Gov. Josh Shapiro having two active TikTok accounts where he boasts about his “three moods,” state agencies can’t create TikTok accounts or buy ad space on the app.

Shapiro’s office did not respond to a request for comment on SB 379.

Should the bill become law, it would cause ripples throughout the Delaware Valley region. Bucks County uses TikTok to communicate with the public. Delaware County officials said last year that TikTok was still allowed on government-owned phones. Chester County has a ban on TikTok from government phones due to cybersecurity concerns. Montgomery County officials didn’t comment on the county’s TikTok policy.

Pennsylvania’s two Democrat U.S. Sens. Bob Casey and John Fetterman are both active on the platform as is President Joe Biden. Other federal employees can’t use TikTok on their work phones.

A bill that calls for ByteDance to sell TikTok or face a ban in America passed the U.S. House this month.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

For a different point of view see: “Counterpoint: Banning TikTok Is a Blow to Free Speech”

The Chinese Communist Party in Beijing is nervous — and it ought to be. The U.S. Congress has targeted a significant tool the CCP uses to spread disinformation among Americans, and the rulers in Beijing are not happy about it. The House has voted to require TikTok to be divested from Chinese ownership, not banned, as its critics charge. This effort will protect free speech, not limit it, as the same, often well-paid, critics claim.

Of course, the tool is TikTok, a popular app that millions of Americans use to promote their companies and reach new audiences. “It’s harmless,” you might say. Only it isn’t. The app is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, which is under CCP control. Beijing has an iron grasp over the platform’s algorithm and all user data. Your data. And it is a major U.S. national security risk.

Remember, this is the Chinese government that executed a comprehensive theft of 24 million American government and military officials’ records held by the Office of Personnel Management. It cannot be trusted with access to an even greater number of Americans’ personal data and cannot be trusted to keep from attempting to influence U.S. elections.

It’s a government that, according to respected international human rights organizations, is “waging a targeted campaign against Uyghur women, men and children” and conducting human rights abuses that include “coercive population control methods, forced labor, arbitrary detention in internment camps, torture, physical and sexual abuse, mass surveillance, family separation, and repression of cultural and religious expression.”

Of even greater concern is the disinformation and manipulation campaign that the CCP is already running on the TikTok platform, which could potentially accelerate into a contingency or conflict between the United States and China. A group of Rutgers University researchers have clearly demonstrated that the app promotes CCP interests, and they assess that there is “a strong possibility that content on TikTok is either amplified or suppressed based on its alignment with the interests of the Chinese Government.”

By comparing the volume of TikTok posts with those of Instagram, you can see how access to views on issues such as the invasion of Ukraine and October 7 and its aftermath is manipulated in a way that is helpful to Chinese national security interests. This algorithmic manipulation is even clearer and over-the-top when applied to sensitive political topics in China, such as the Tiananmen Square massacre, the Uighur genocide, and Hong Kong.

Knowing this, lawmakers in Congress passed a bipartisan bill to divest TikTok from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance. The legislation now heads to the Senate for action.

Critics of the legislation claim lawmakers want to “ban” TikTok. But it is not a ban. The House legislation calls for divesting TikTok from its Chinese parent company. The bill is a balanced and feasible solution that safeguards innovation, strengthens U.S. national security, protects the Bytedance/TikTok investors, and helps keep private information from being collected by the CCP.

In a nutshell, this divestment ensures that American users can enjoy TikTok for creative expression and to grow and market their businesses — but under new ownership that respects U.S. laws and values.

This is not about stifling speech. It is about keeping China from suppressing free speech. Remember, the Chinese Communist Party has established counterintelligence laws that give it unfettered access to data held by Chinese companies and openly practices its preference for state sovereignty over personal privacy. The CCP does not adhere to core American principles like free speech and assembly.

Divesting TikTok from ByteDance ensures the platform can continue operating in the United States, free from Beijing’s influence and without impeding individual Americans’ right to express themselves.

It’s also good for the U.S. economy. TikTok investors, including American financial services and private equity firms, stand to reap billions should TikTok be acquired by a non-Chinese company. These funds could be reinvested in new technology start-ups or other business ventures. Moreover, divestment, rather than an outright ban, ensures greater competition. Users can expect greater innovation, safer services, and a richer and more diverse social media experience — all while blunting Beijing’s ability to leverage TikTok to undercut fair elections and free speech.

Beijing is not taking this lying down. As Craig Singleton, an expert on Chinese lobbying, has observed, ByteDance has an immense lobbying machine in Washington — and the company is not lobbying for your values. It has a bottomless budget, and it is spreading that cash around to stop the House bill before it gets traction in the Senate.

Congress is right to end Beijing’s efforts to sow political discord in the United States and harvest Americans’ personal data. The House was right to pass the TikTok/ByteDance divestment legislation, as was President Biden in his pledge to sign any such bill that comes to his desk. Now, it’s up to the Senate to protect America from China’s malign influence.

After police filed a lawsuit over Springfield Township’s ban on the thin blue line American flag symbol, the township has agreed to an injunction. As a result, the ban will not take effect.

The Fraternal Order of Police Pennsylvania Lodge, the Springfield Township Police Benevolent Association, and three officers filed the suit against the township and its board of commissioners individually.

The plaintiffs asked a judge for an emergency temporary restraining order, followed by an injunction, so they can keep the flag. Officers feared retaliation, including losing their jobs, if they did not comply with the resolution. Federal Judge Karen Marston issued an order on Wednesday after both sides agreed to the injunction.

“We are very pleased,” said Wally Zimolong, attorney for the police. “The resolution is blatantly unconstitutional as re-enforced by decades of Supreme Court precedent. But it is unfortunate that it took a federal lawsuit to halt its implementation.”

On Jan. 11, the board voted 5-2 to ban the display of the flag on township property, from police uniforms, or on their bodies (tattoos) while on duty, and on any township property in the Montgomery County community.

The PBA uses the thin blue line American flag as its logo.

While the thin blue line flag is widely recognized as a symbol of support for police, especially for fallen officers, some say it symbolizes hate or oppression. And some white supremacist groups have flown the flag as well.

Residents espoused both sides of the issue during discussions at township meetings, but those who opposed the flag carried the day.

In the lawsuit, the police claimed the township’s ban is a violation of their First Amendment right to free speech and also their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law.

The ban is” blatantly unconstitutional,” the suit said. “It defiles bedrock First Amendment principles reiterated by a legion of Supreme Court cases.”

“These First Amendment protections are not diluted for speech that some might find offensive, distasteful, or controversial,” the suit said. And governments, including municipal governments, cannot ban speech.

“The Thin Blue Line flag is clearly entitled to First Amendment protection,” the suit argues. “Flags have been used to convey messages from almost the beginning of civilization. The Thin Blue Line flag is no different. Less than a year ago, the Third Circuit recognized that it carries and expresses a political, social, cultural, and symbolic meaning (in a case out of Boston).”

“The Thin Blue Line flag has come to represent a show of support for and solidarity with members of law enforcement, which includes police officers. Through a resolution at its national conference, the Fraternal Order of Police have affirmed its support for the use of the Thin Blue Line flag by law enforcement and the communities they protect,” according to the suit.

The Pennsylvania FOP “believes that the Thin Blue Line flag represents the preservation of the rule of law, the protection of peace and freedom, the sacrifice of fallen law enforcement officers and the dedication of law enforcement officers.”

The Springfield PBA also believes that the Thin Blue Line flag represents the same things.

Springfield PBA displays this logo on its website and “it displays the logo at fundraisers, events supporting Springfield PBA, and merchandise.”

“Moreover, its members display, depict, install, affix, or use the Thin Blue Line flag on pins, buttons, articles of clothing, and items affixed to personal belongings, such as bumper stickers and patches. Many members of the Springfield PBA wear a rubber replacement wedding ring that displays and depicts the Thin Blue Line flag,” the suit said.

Also, “defendants do not hide that at least one of their motivations for banning the Thin Blue Line flag is because it “represent[s] opposition to racial justice movements, including the Black Lives Matter cause.”

“That certain members of the public may view the Thin Blue Line flag negatively scarcely helps the constitutionality of the (Springfield) resolution. If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable,” the suit notes.

Asked to comment, Commissioners President James Lee declined, instead referring to the video of the BOC meeting where the resolution was adopted.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal