The "RESTRICT Act" Must be Stopped
Those in Congress who are pushing for banning TikTok have other motives behind their endeavors.
Earlier this month, the “Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act” — otherwise known as the “RESTRICT Act”, was introduced onto the Senate floor by Senators Mark Warner (D-VA) and John Thune (R-SD), one Democrat and one Republican. The proposed act has gained increased momentum in the Senate, procuring support from 21 bipartisan cosponsors and a warm endorsement from the Biden administration.
By no means is the bill merely confined to granting the executive branch the authority to ban TikTok; it goes much deeper than that. Recently, the bill has obtained widespread notoriety and understandable concern with regard to the broad and troubling language within the text which would hand the federal government tremendous and expansive powers over the internet, speech, and communications; domestically and abroad.
The bill is purportedly aimed at targeting “foreign adversaries” and guarding American national security, but in reality, it’s aimed at curtailing the civil liberties of American citizens with the intention of leveraging even more government control over the internet and speech. The broadness and vagueness of the definitions inside the text are what are so concerning from a pro-civil liberties standpoint. In truth, the RESTRICT Act would do far more than just ban TikTok.
According to the opening line of the bill, the proposed act would grant the Secretary of Commerce the power to regulate “certain transactions between persons in the United States and foreign adversaries,” — an incredibly broad power. In Section 3 of the bill, the Secretary is authorized to enforce “any mitigation measure to address any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person, or with respect to any property,” that the Secretary deems a risk to national security.
The act would also grant the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of National Intelligence the astonishingly broad power of designating any country as a “foreign adversary” at will, not subject to the discretion of Congress. If you are deemed to be acting in the interests of a foreign adversary, the federal government has the power to access virtually everything of yours, ranging from phones to gaming applications, computers, and so forth.
According to the definitions, transactions with a foreign adversary would include “any acquisition, importation, transfer, installation, dealing in, or use of any information and communications technology product or service, including ongoing activities such as managed services, data transmission, software updates, repairs, or the provision of data hosting services, or a class of such transactions.” If any individual is found to have engaged in these vague transactions, the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of National Intelligence have the authority to determine whether or not the individual is acting in the “interest” of a foreign adversary.
If anyone is found to be violating this proposed law, they can receive a hefty fine of up to $1 million and 20 years in prison. Adding to the absurdity, the act is protected from Freedom of Information Act requests, a clear indication of the rampant authoritarianism the bill would allow.
This is only the tip of the iceberg concerning the blatant overreach packed inside the bill. The Libertarian Party Mises Caucus on Sunday posted a great Twitter thread on the dangers posed by the RESTRICT Act:
This bill, if it were to pass, would have severe ramifications for the civil liberties of American citizens. It would grant the executive branch enormous powers over the U.S. communications infrastructure. Needless to say, the overly broad language within the bill would allocate new vast powers to the Biden administration to target individuals and companies they believe to be advancing the interests of foreign adversaries. Anyone with common sense can see that it will be egregiously abused and exploited by the government for its own gain and power.
Former Libertarian Congressman Justin Amash hit the nail on the head regarding the RESTRICT Act: “The RESTRICT Act isn’t about banning TikTok; it’s about controlling you. It gives broad powers to the executive branch, with few checks, and will be abused in every way you can imagine.”
Ultimately, The RESTRICT Act along with the proposed DATA Act in the House, has little to do with banning TikTok and everything to do with adding to the monolithic power of the federal government. It’s a Trojan Horse for more state-sponsored censorship and control, obscuring its true intentions by hiding in the guise of combating Chinese spying through TikTok.
In the end, the RESTRICT Act is an abomination and should be loudly proclaimed as such. Comparable in many ways to the tyrannical 2001 Patriot Act, it would dangerously expand the national security state at the expense of the liberties of the people. It must be stopped.
Smells like the Patriot Act after 9.11.......bad.
I sure didn’t see that coming. NO we do not need our government to have more power over our lives. Stop it now before they fool us all again!