argumentative essay on co education should be banned

Question and Answer forum for K12 Students

Argumentative Essay Topic – Advantages, Disadvantages Of Co-Education In Schools

Advantages, Disadvantages Of Co-Education In Schools. You can find Previous Year Argumentative Essay Topics asked in ICSE board exams.

Introduction: What is coeducation? Its advantages and disadvantages

• Co-education is an economical way of providing education.
• Can make the right to education a reality
• It has a positive impact on the students, leading to good behavioural changes
• Eliminates social evils like eve-teasing and sexual harassment
• Generates healthy competition, moulds the character and personality
• The disadvantages according to orthodox people is that it distracts students from studies.
• Social networking sites have already done away with the social divide.
• It leads to violence in schools, for winning the affection of a fellow student.

Conclusion: Co-education in schools is good for the society and the nation.

Co-education in school is the imparting of education to both boys and girls. It is prevalent in many schools and colleges across the country, because of the many advantages it offers to the students and the society. There are however few disadvantages which are basically physiological in nature.

Co-education is an economical way of providing education to the masses, which – ‘ can make the right to education a reality, for the people living in the remote areas of the country. This is because it eliminates the need for having separate schools for boys and girls, which a developing country like India cannot afford.

Furthermore it has a positive impact on the students. Psychologists have observed good behavioural changes in students going to co-educational schools. While boys overcome their curiosity for girls, the girls get over their shyness. They learn to respect and cooperate with each other. The boys dress properly and behave well in the company of girls. They use dignified language and show courtesy. This improves the moral and social etiquettes, for familiarity blunts the edge of curiosity, leading to better understanding of each other.

This interaction also generates more self-confidence in students which is crucial for their all-round development. It is a known fact that students from such institutions are more genuine, frank and possess a wholesome personality. They are not mesmerized, nor over awed in male/ female company. This free interaction helps in eliminating the social scourge of eve-teasing and sexual harassment that is prevalent in the society.

It also generates healthy competition in academics and sports, making them work hard to remain ahead. They leam the importance of team work and cooperation, which is important later in life. In a way coeducation helps in moulding the character and personality of the future generation of the country.

The disadvantages according to some orthodox people is that it distracts students from studies. Romance and heartbreaks at the tender age has disastrous consequences. However, such arguments do not hold much water in modem times. The easy access to the Internet, or social networking sites like the Facebook, What’sapp etc. on the mobile, have already done away with the social divide.

Another charge levelled against co-education is the increasing incidence of violence ’ in schools, for winning the affection of a fellow student. This also to a large extent is on account of segregation of sexes.

Co-education in schools therefore, has many advantages. It enables the boys and girls to understand each other. There is no room for fearing loss of moral values, for the world is changing fast. Women today have an equal status with men in the society. There is therefore a need to accept the changing order and encourage coeducation in schools. Besides providing a better learning environment, it is good for the society and the nation.

Assignments

• ‘Is co-education in schools desirable?’ Discuss
• ‘Boarding schools are better than day schools.’ Give your view.

Essay On Co Education

500 words essay on co education.

Co-education refers to education for both boys as well as girls. It is when the joint education of both the sexes takes place at the same institution in the same classes. It is an economic system as both the girls and boys study in the same school and college. Moreover, as girls and boys have to live together in a society in their later life, it prepares them in advance for this. The essay on co education will take us through its importance and advantages.

Importance of Co-education

Co-education is very essential for understanding social intelligence. In other words, social intelligence is what helps us, humans, to effectively negotiate and navigate the complicated relationships and environments we live in.

Further, we regard it as the competence of the individual for understanding their background and reacting in a manner that is socially acceptable.  In other words, social intelligence is a vital tool for children.

It helps them grow up as good human beings within society. Through this, a child can develop healthy relationships with their family and friends as well as a member of society. Moreover, it also makes them better at managing their emotions.

Similarly, they are able to handle conflicts well and be empathetic towards others along with improving their values. Most importantly, co-education also helps to remove gender discrimination . Both the boys and girls get equal respect which helps them in the future.

Co-education is also important as it helps in nurturing healthy competition amongst the opposite sexes. Thus, it helps them to maintain their dignity and educates them to face their failures as well as learn from them.

Advantages of Co-education

There are many advantages to co-education. The first one is that they offer school diversity. This helps the students who wish to enrol in that school. Moreover, when students get exposed to diversity young, they find it easier to adapt to different diverse environments.

Further, it also teaches them equality as the teachers treat everyone equally. Students participate in all competition equally without any discrimination. Moreover, it also promotes socialization by promoting co-existence.

Students can prepare in advance for the real world because, at co-educational schools, they live in a healthy environment composed of both sexes. It also improves the communication skills of students as they interact with everyone.

Students also develop mutual respect and self-esteem in these schools. Most importantly, these institutions help the students overcome the fear of the opposite sex. It helps them get rid of the hesitation and shyness to talk to the opposite sex as they study in a friendly environment together.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Conclusion of the Essay on Co Education

To conclude, co-education is an excellent system which helps the students in almost all spheres of life. It is great for the all-round development of kids as it takes away the fear of interacting with the opposite sex. Consequently, it prepares them for a world where they can effortlessly work in an environment filled with all kinds of people.

FAQ of Essay on Co Education

Question 1: What is the importance of co-education?

Answer 1: Co-education carries a lot of importance to kids as they benefit from higher levels of social skills. Moreover, their self-esteem also increases which allows them to prepare better for a diverse world with both men and women playing important roles.

Question 2: What are the disadvantages of co-education?

Answer 2: One of the most important disadvantages of co-education is lack of concentration. It is a known fact that opposite-sex attracts each other so students tend to lose temperament and momentum to their studies. Another disadvantage often noticed in co-educational institutions is sexual harassment caused by students.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Why I Think All Schools Should Abolish Homework

H ow long is your child’s workweek? Thirty hours? Forty? Would it surprise you to learn that some elementary school kids have workweeks comparable to adults’ schedules? For most children, mandatory homework assignments push their workweek far beyond the school day and deep into what any other laborers would consider overtime. Even without sports or music or other school-sponsored extracurriculars, the daily homework slog keeps many students on the clock as long as lawyers, teachers, medical residents, truck drivers and other overworked adults. Is it any wonder that,deprived of the labor protections that we provide adults, our kids are suffering an epidemic of disengagement, anxiety and depression ?

With my youngest child just months away from finishing high school, I’m remembering all the needless misery and missed opportunities all three of my kids suffered because of their endless assignments. When my daughters were in middle school, I would urge them into bed before midnight and then find them clandestinely studying under the covers with a flashlight. We cut back on their activities but still found ourselves stuck in a system on overdrive, returning home from hectic days at 6 p.m. only to face hours more of homework. Now, even as a senior with a moderate course load, my son, Zak, has spent many weekends studying, finding little time for the exercise and fresh air essential to his well-being. Week after week, and without any extracurriculars, Zak logs a lot more than the 40 hours adults traditionally work each week — and with no recognition from his “bosses” that it’s too much. I can’t count the number of shared evenings, weekend outings and dinners that our family has missed and will never get back.

How much after-school time should our schools really own?

In the midst of the madness last fall, Zak said to me, “I feel like I’m working towards my death. The constant demands on my time since 5th grade are just going to continue through graduation, into college, and then into my job. It’s like I’m on an endless treadmill with no time for living.”

My spirit crumbled along with his.

Like Zak, many people are now questioning the point of putting so much demand on children and teens that they become thinly stretched and overworked. Studies have long shown that there is no academic benefit to high school homework that consumes more than a modest number of hours each week. In a study of high schoolers conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), researchers concluded that “after around four hours of homework per week, the additional time invested in homework has a negligible impact on performance.”

In elementary school, where we often assign overtime even to the youngest children, studies have shown there’s no academic benefit to any amount of homework at all.

Our unquestioned acceptance of homework also flies in the face of all we know about human health, brain function and learning. Brain scientists know that rest and exercise are essential to good health and real learning . Even top adult professionals in specialized fields take care to limit their work to concentrated periods of focus. A landmark study of how humans develop expertise found that elite musicians, scientists and athletes do their most productive work only about four hours per day .

Yet we continue to overwork our children, depriving them of the chance to cultivate health and learn deeply, burdening them with an imbalance of sedentary, academic tasks. American high school students , in fact, do more homework each week than their peers in the average country in the OECD, a 2014 report found.

It’s time for an uprising.

Already, small rebellions are starting. High schools in Ridgewood, N.J. , and Fairfax County, Va., among others, have banned homework over school breaks. The entire second grade at Taylor Elementary School in Arlington, Va., abolished homework this academic year. Burton Valley Elementary School in Lafayette, Calif., has eliminated homework in grades K through 4. Henry West Laboratory School , a public K-8 school in Coral Gables, Fla., eliminated mandatory, graded homework for optional assignments. One Lexington, Mass., elementary school is piloting a homework-free year, replacing it with reading for pleasure.

More from TIME

Across the Atlantic, students in Spain launched a national strike against excessive assignments in November. And a second-grade teacher in Texas, made headlines this fall when she quit sending home extra work , instead urging families to “spend your evenings doing things that are proven to correlate with student success. Eat dinner as a family, read together, play outside and get your child to bed early.”

It is time that we call loudly for a clear and simple change: a workweek limit for children, counting time on the clock before and after the final bell. Why should schools extend their authority far beyond the boundaries of campus, dictating activities in our homes in the hours that belong to families? An all-out ban on after-school assignments would be optimal. Short of that, we can at least sensibly agree on a cap limiting kids to a 40-hour workweek — and fewer hours for younger children.

Resistance even to this reasonable limit will be rife. Mike Miller, an English teacher at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, Va., found this out firsthand when he spearheaded a homework committee to rethink the usual approach. He had read the education research and found a forgotten policy on the county books limiting homework to two hours a night, total, including all classes. “I thought it would be a slam dunk” to put the two-hour cap firmly in place, Miller said.

But immediately, people started balking. “There was a lot of fear in the community,” Miller said. “It’s like jumping off a high dive with your kids’ future. If we reduce homework to two hours or less, is my kid really going to be okay?” In the end, the committee only agreed to a homework ban over school breaks.

Miller’s response is a great model for us all. He decided to limit assignments in his own class to 20 minutes a night (the most allowed for a student with six classes to hit the two-hour max). His students didn’t suddenly fail. Their test scores remained stable. And they started using their more breathable schedule to do more creative, thoughtful work.

That’s the way we will get to a sane work schedule for kids: by simultaneously pursuing changes big and small. Even as we collaboratively press for policy changes at the district or individual school level, all teachers can act now, as individuals, to ease the strain on overworked kids.

As parents and students, we can also organize to make homework the exception rather than the rule. We can insist that every family, teacher and student be allowed to opt out of assignments without penalty to make room for important activities, and we can seek changes that shift practice exercises and assignments into the actual school day.

We’ll know our work is done only when Zak and every other child can clock out, eat dinner, sleep well and stay healthy — the very things needed to engage and learn deeply. That’s the basic standard the law applies to working adults. Let’s do the same for our kids.

Vicki Abeles is the author of the bestseller Beyond Measure: Rescuing an Overscheduled, Overtested, Underestimated Generation, and director and producer of the documentaries “ Race to Nowhere ” and “ Beyond Measure. ”

More Must-Reads From TIME

• What Student Photojournalists Saw at the Campus Protests
• How Far Trump Would Go
• Why Maternity Care Is Underpaid
• Saving Seconds Is Better Than Hours
• Welcome to the Golden Age of Ryan Gosling
• Scientists Are Finding Out Just How Toxic Your Stuff Is
• The 100 Most Influential People of 2024
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Contact us at [email protected]

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Education

The Coeducation Of Schools Argumentative Essay Example

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Education , Environment , Social Issues , Skills , Family , Students , Crime , Opposite

Words: 1250

Published: 02/09/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

- Introduction & Thesis Statement There are different theories that have been created regarding the purpose of an education. Education is not only meant to impart knowledge on learners, but is also meant to shape the moral code of values of the individuals. In this way, education systems produce well-rounded individuals who are both knowledgeable and of great service to their societies. In an effort to create the most favorable educational environment, there have been arguments both for and against coeducation of schools. Proponents of coeducation are of the view that such an education enhances responsibility among students, holding of students irrespective of gender to the same standard, and nurturing cross gender relation. Despite these few benefits attributed to coeducation, this paper is of the view that coeducation is not the best learning environment. In the light of this, this paper argues against coeducation of schools on the grounds that it affects the focus of students on education, there are a large number of crimes in coeducation schools, and the fact girls and boys have different abilities that cannot be optimally developed in a coeducation system.

First Argument

First of all, it is important to realize that for students to be able to focus on their education there have to be free of other activities that might alter their concentration in the education process. It is important to realize that as students mature both physically and mentally, they become more aware of their external environment. The environment within a coeducation school exposes students to members of their opposite sex. The realization of the pleasures that might come as a result of having members of the opposite sex with the classroom environment, in most cases affects the concentration of students. Students are pre-occupied with activities that reduce their productivity and commitment to education. For example, the starting of relationships between boys and girls at a tender age is a common practice in co-education schools. It is important to realize that being in a relationship or finding oneself to be attractive is something that bothers students at a tender age (Tyack, 1990, p.56). For instance, girls who do not have dates to take them out during proms and other social events suffer from low self-esteem. This lack of self-esteem can be detrimental to the learning process because it is sometimes discouraging and demotivating to the students that are affected. The realization of the pleasures of having members of the opposite sex in the classroom environment is not something that parents and instructors can be able to contain. The only way that parents can be able to create a better educational environment is by taking their children is separate schools, where they can be able to wholly focus on the education process and not members of the opposite sex that are part of the learning process in coeducation schools.

Second Argument

The presence of high levels of crime in coeducation schools is another important reason as to why both boys and girls should attend separate schools. It is important to note that students are more likely to behave different in the presence of members of the opposite sex. There is a feeling of pride and competition for attention in coeducation schools. In an effort to stand out among the rest many student in coeducation schools might engage in activities such as premarital sex as a way to prove to their peers that they are better than them. In some cases, students seek attention from members of the opposite sex by engaging in activities such as the use of drugs and attending parties so as to please members of the opposite sex (Howe, 1984, p.32). In some cases, they are vices such as fights that result from competition for members of the opposite sex in co-education schools. These are things that can be avoided in the classroom environment by making sure that both boys and girls learn separately so that they can focus more on education rather than other petty issues that do not add any quality to their lives. Therefore, the environment in co-education schools increases the likelihood for crime as students seek to increase the attention of members of the opposite sex. These crimes reduce the productivity of students and put the education of many students in jeopardy. All these excitements and crimes among students can be avoided by making sure that both boys and girls attended different schools so that their education is not affected.

Third Argument

The fact that both boys and girls have different abilities is another reason why both boys and girls should attend different schools. Despite both boys and girls have the same abilities in form of the academia; it is important to note that boys and girls are different physically. The physical differences between boys and girls make it difficult for topics that solely relate to one sex to be discussed in the classroom environment. There are topics that can only be discussed in the absence of one sex. Topics of morality, sex, and hygiene are some of the examples that need to be discussed different in the case of both boys and girls (Shmurak, 1998, p.21). This means that the best education environment for boys and girls is separately schools where each of the gender can be adequately taught and nurtured with regards to the essential topics that are important in life.

Counter Argument (Special Paragraph)

Life requires men and women who can effectively function and operate under diverse and difficult environments. Separate school so not help prepare such men and women. This is because they isolate students of the opposite gender yet in life these students will be interacting with people of the opposite sex. Separate schools can lead to the lack of interaction skills socially with members of the opposite sex, because such a relationship is not fostered as an early age in separated schools. This means that if parents are aiming at raising all-round children who will be in a position to have better interaction skills in the future, it is prudent that they take their children in coeducation skills. Despite the distraction that might result in the learning environment owing to presence of the opposite sex, students will be able to avoid this distracting as they grow and mature both in age and in the learning process. Therefore, coeducation schools are important because they provide real life environment that entails the presence of members of the opposite sex in the classroom environment. This is however not the case in separated schools where student only interact with students of the same sex.

Conclusion, Main Arguments, & Reinstatement of Thesis

In conclusion, boys and girls should attend separate schools as opposed to coeducation schools. This is because coeducation schools affects the focus and concentration of students on education, there are a large number of crimes in coeducation schools, and the fact girls and boys have different abilities that cannot be optimally developed in a coeducation system.

Howe, F. (1984). Myths of coeducation: selected essays, 1964-1983. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Shmurak, C. B. (1998). Voices of hope: adolescent girls at single sex and coeducational schools. New York: P. Lang. Tyack, D. B. (1990). Learning together: a history of coeducation in American schools. New Haven: Yale University Press .

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 2381

This paper is created by writer with

ID 282192833

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Management literature reviews, refrigerator argumentative essays, auto argumentative essays, communion argumentative essays, invitation argumentative essays, optimization argumentative essays, landing argumentative essays, pants argumentative essays, pipeline argumentative essays, follower argumentative essays, arrangement argumentative essays, vista argumentative essays, migrant argumentative essays, social media article review examples, example of essay on media strategy, pros and cons write up creative writing examples, jim crow laws essay, example of course work on forecasting, free essay on native american sports teams and mascots, bristol method essays examples, shay 039 s rebellion by leonard richards book review examples, sample essay on the different uses of calculus in medicine, example of ans essay, risk factors in the lgbt world essays examples, example of movie review on super size me, solidworks finite element analyis reports example, example of thesis on fracking regulation and agenda setting an analysis of the formulation of, good essay about environmental studies, good essay about the changing role of religion in american public life, define hate crime course work, free japan taxes on alcoholic beverages case study example, study on competitive advantages of starbucks surfers paradise coffee shop case study sample, elena kagan essays, amniotomy essays, bovis essays, delphine essays, client satisfaction essays, cash discount essays, exxon mobil essays, angiostaxis essays, alina essays.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Should schools ban or integrate generative AI in the classroom?

Subscribe to the center for technology innovation newsletter, regina ta and regina ta research intern - the brookings institution darrell m. west darrell m. west senior fellow - center for technology innovation , douglas dillon chair in governmental studies.

August 7, 2023

• The advent of generative AI tools creates both opportunities and risks for students and teachers.
• So far, public schools have followed one of three strategies, either banning generative AI, integrating it into curricula, or placing it under further review.
• Moving forward, schools should develop guiding principles for the use of AI tools, provide training resources for educators, and empower educators to implement those principles.
• 10 min read

The start of a new school year is soon approaching, but there is a major question left unresolved: What are schools going to do about generative AI? Since ChatGPT’s release on November 30, 2022, educators have been slow to address questions regarding whether to allow its use in the classroom and how the tool affects pedagogy, student learning, and creativity. Debates have been intense among stakeholders—including teachers, parents, students, and edtech developers—about the opportunities for personalized learning, enhanced evaluations, and augmenting human performance against the possible risks of increased plagiarism and cheating , disinformation and discriminatory bias , and weakened critical thinking .

In this post, we review current responses to generative AI across K-12 public school districts and explore what remains to be done. Right now, public schools have varied between banning or integrating generative AI and reviews are ongoing without any definitive guidelines. After sharing how public schools are addressing these options, we suggest a path forward in which schools establish guiding principles, provide training resources, empower educators to implement those principles, and help over-burdened districts that already are struggling with instructional, infrastructure, and financial challenges.

Three paths of action from public schools

Colleges and universities are largely deferring to faculty to determine policies on generative AI, so a lot of higher education is moving on an ad-hoc basis that varies by classroom, course, and professor. There is neither a common approach across universities, nor agreed-upon policies on how to move forward.

In the case of K-12 public school districts, most administrators generally are taking institutional action and implementing decisions for entire school districts. They are not delegating the decisions to teachers but are enacting across-the-board decisions that affect every teacher and student in their jurisdiction. Their efforts fall into one of three categories: banning, integrating, or reviewing generative AI.

Banning generative AI

By the end of May 2023, ChatGPT joined YouTube, Netflix, and Roblox on lists of websites either banned for school staff and students among various large U.S. school districts, where access would require special approval. The controversial movement to widely ban ChatGPT began when the two largest school districts in the nation—New York City Public Schools and Los Angeles Unified— blocked access to ChatGPT from school Wi-Fi networks and devices. Other districts soon followed suit.

Citing the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), Fairfax County Public Schools in Virginia restricted access to ChatGPT, since the chatbot may not be appropriate for minors. Texas’s Austin Independent School District cited similar concerns about academic integrity and child safety in its decision. Seattle Public Schools banned access to not only ChatGPT, but also six additional websites that provide AI-powered writing assistance, including Rytr , Jasper , and WordAI . While these were not full bans, student use restrictions affected teacher adoption and use.

However, one problem with the approach to ban or restrict ChatGPT is that students can always find ways to circumvent school-issued bans outside the classroom. ChatGPT and other such chatbot tools are accessible from home or non-school networks and devices. Students could also use other third-party writing tools, since it would be impractical to ban the growing number of websites and applications driven by generative AI. Besides, bans may only be band-aid solutions, distracting from the root causes of inefficacy in our school systems—for instance, concerns about ChatGPT-enabled cheating might instead point to a need for changing how teachers assess students.

But the biggest problem, by far, is that this approach could cause more harm than good, especially if the benefits as well as the opportunities are not weighed. For example, ChatGPT can enrich learning and teaching in K-12 classrooms, and a full ban might deny students and teachers potential opportunities to leverage the technology for instruction, or lesson development. Instead of universally banning ChatGPT, school districts should recognize that needs in adoption and use may vary by teacher, classroom, and student. Imagine using ChatGPT for a history vs. an art class, for students whose first language is not English, and for students with learning disabilities. Different issues can pop up in various use cases, so across-the-board bans, and even restrictions for that matter, could limit the ability of students and instructors to take advantage of relevant learning benefits, and in turn, have effects on adoption and use during postsecondary opportunities, or in the workplace.

Integrating generative AI

New York City Public Schools—the first school system to block access to ChatGPT—was also the first to reverse its ban. Within four months of the initial ban, the reversal came after convenings of tech industry representatives and educators to evaluate emerging risks and understand how to leverage ChatGPT’s capabilities for the better. To support teachers, NYC school district leaders have promised to provide resources developed by MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), along with real-life examples of successful AI implementation from classrooms in the district that have been early adopters of technology. The district also plans to create a shared repository to track each school’s progress and share findings across schools.

Schools like Peninsula School District in Washington had already been working to integrate AI into their curricula, so when ChatGPT arrived, they were prepared: digital learning teams visited classrooms across different grade levels to share how language models work, as well as how to identify and leverage AI-generated content. Alliance City School District in Ohio is also embracing ChatGPT’s potential, resolving to proactively set boundaries on its usage to prevent misuse. In Lower Merion School District, students from Pennsylvania will hone their critical thinking skills by analyzing and editing AI-generated writing. In all the above cases, responsibly integrating generative AI as a teaching tool will require school districts to invest in proper oversight procedures and professional development for educators.

As such, Garden City Public Schools in New York has held training sessions for educators to demonstrate the capabilities of different generative AI tools, along with how to incorporate them effectively and tailor materials to students’ needs. Schools like Norway-Vulcan Area Schools in Michigan also plan to provide professional development opportunities for teachers, as well as strengthen the school community’s understanding of its honor code and plagiarism policies. The district has encouraged teachers to use Turnitin’s AI detector to check for cases of plagiarism, as they prepare to teach with generative AI in the fall.

There are some schools that are being more cautious as they integrate generative AI. In Texas, Mineral Wells Independent School District has adopted a more cautious approach, testing generative AI use in an experimental set of classrooms, and sending those instructors for general training in AI. Elsewhere in Texas, Eanes Independent School District is similarly focused on helping teachers make the most of generative AI, as they first try ChatGPT for administrative use cases, like scheduling or lesson planning.

Placing generative AI under review

While districts like Prince George’s County (MD), Jefferson County (KY), and Chicago (IL) have not banned ChatGPT, they have placed the chatbot under review . School districts that haven’t acted yet are watching and waiting, and most fall into this category. A recent survey by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) found that less than 10% of schools have implemented guidance on generative AI, and of the schools with policies in place, 40% reported that the guidance was only communicated verbally—not in writing.

Just as we demand transparency from developers on how AI is built , we need to provide transparency for students and teachers on how AI can be used . Not enough schools have issued formal guidance on generative AI. A nationwide survey of K-12 teachers revealed that 72% have not received guidance on generative AI use. Generally, the longer schools delay their deliberation of bans or integrated use of new generative AI technologies, the higher the stakes—especially with a new school year on the horizon. As one of many generative AI tools being used for education, ChatGPT is increasingly accessed by students and teachers, and the absence of institutional policies may enable counterproductive use cases. Without an educational sandbox for generative AI usage, schools run the risk of having students deploy these rapidly developing technologies in unplanned ways with unintended outcomes affecting safety, equity, and learning.

School districts also have a critical opportunity to govern the use and misuse of generative AI tools before the academic year begins. Districts can shape its use and role in the future of education, instead of letting generative AI write it for them. In California, education policy researchers have made a similar call to action. More important, national concerns around the digital divide in education can make technology more useful in bridging learning gaps created by the lack of home internet. But that also means that schools must support the equitable distribution of generative AI’s benefits. Being proactive about the adoption and use generative AI now will prepare school districts to set precedents about using future technologies in the classroom.

Recommendations for moving forward

Many classroom policies thus far are too narrowly focused on one tool: ChatGPT. Right now, there are thousands of generative AI products that are on the market, and more are being developed every week. School districts need to consider the use not just of ChatGPT, but other generative AI applications, like Llama 2 or BARD , as well as the widespread educational tools, like PowerSchool , Kahoot! , or Khan Academy .

In closing, we recommend strategies below for how school districts can approach generative AI governance, regardless of the product.

Establish guiding principles

In collaboration with edtech specialists, teachers, and students, school districts should develop a set of common, guiding principles for students and teachers around generative AI use. These guidelines should define the purpose and scope of generative AI in the classroom, along with acceptable use cases. These may also serve to establish privacy protections for students and formalize procedures for how teachers can supervise student usage, give feedback, and handle misuse.

Provide training resources for teacher professional development

Whether administrators and/or teachers fear generative AI may disrupt their classrooms or instead welcome its potential, school districts can offer accessible training that will equip all teachers to meet the present moment. These training opportunities may not have to be developed from scratch – districts can adapt online resources, like the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN)’s resource library and TeachAI , who also offer some guiding principles. When educators gain a robust understanding of generative AI, they can apply it productively in their classrooms, as well as support responsible use and understanding among their students.

Empower educators to implement principles

Recognizing that there is no one-size-fits-all policy on generative AI, districts should empower educators to implement institutional recommendations and enforce academic integrity within their classrooms – while applying the technologies in ways that serve their students. This approach models that taken by Department of Education’s recent AI Report , which provides general guidance for learning and teaching with AI—without commenting on specific generative AI tools, due to their rapid progress. Teachers can reference district-level principles as a guiding framework, upon which they can design transparent, well-defined expectations for their students.

Help overburdened districts

Finally, we need to help overburdened and under-resourced districts that already are struggling with instructional, infrastructure, and financial challenges. There remain sharp inequities in public school resources, and modern technologies often accentuate those disparities. Some schools have good digital infrastructures, while others do not. The same also applies to the equitably available financial means to integrate new teaching tools in the classroom.

As schools consider how to utilize generative AI, we should be cognizant of these disparities and provide help to make sure marginalized districts are not left behind. Federal and state officials could earmark money to public school districts who receive minimal assistance on using generative AI to help teachers, students, and administrators deal with its utilization. In the end, for districts to ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion in the deployment of these tools, school leaders ought to level the playing field for their use, especially before its unyielding adoption and use.

The proposed strategies are not required of school districts in any order. Rather, they are the beginning of both immediate and future conversations for how to understand how to leverage generative AI tools in educational settings.

Related Content

Jeremy Baum, John Villasenor

July 18, 2023

Cameron F. Kerry

July 7, 2023

Darrell M. West

May 3, 2023

Meta and Google are general, unrestricted donors to the Brookings Institution. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions posted in this piece are solely those of the authors and are not influenced by any donation.

K-12 Education

Artificial Intelligence

Governance Studies

U.S. States and Territories

Center for Technology Innovation

Jing Liu, Cameron Conrad, David Blazar

May 1, 2024

Hannah C. Kistler, Shaun M. Dougherty

April 9, 2024

Darrell M. West, Joseph B. Keller

February 12, 2024

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

9.3: The Argumentative Essay

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 58378
• Lumen Learning

Learning Objectives

• Examine types of argumentative essays

Argumentative Essays

You may have heard it said that all writing is an argument of some kind. Even if you’re writing an informative essay, you still have the job of trying to convince your audience that the information is important. However, there are times you’ll be asked to write an essay that is specifically an argumentative piece.

An argumentative essay is one that makes a clear assertion or argument about some topic or issue. When you’re writing an argumentative essay, it’s important to remember that an academic argument is quite different from a regular, emotional argument. Note that sometimes students forget the academic aspect of an argumentative essay and write essays that are much too emotional for an academic audience. It’s important for you to choose a topic you feel passionately about (if you’re allowed to pick your topic), but you have to be sure you aren’t too emotionally attached to a topic. In an academic argument, you’ll have a lot more constraints you have to consider, and you’ll focus much more on logic and reasoning than emotions.

Argumentative essays are quite common in academic writing and are often an important part of writing in all disciplines. You may be asked to take a stand on a social issue in your introduction to writing course, but you could also be asked to take a stand on an issue related to health care in your nursing courses or make a case for solving a local environmental problem in your biology class. And, since argument is such a common essay assignment, it’s important to be aware of some basic elements of a good argumentative essay.

When your professor asks you to write an argumentative essay, you’ll often be given something specific to write about. For example, you may be asked to take a stand on an issue you have been discussing in class. Perhaps, in your education class, you would be asked to write about standardized testing in public schools. Or, in your literature class, you might be asked to argue the effects of protest literature on public policy in the United States.

However, there are times when you’ll be given a choice of topics. You might even be asked to write an argumentative essay on any topic related to your field of study or a topic you feel that is important personally.

Whatever the case, having some knowledge of some basic argumentative techniques or strategies will be helpful as you write. Below are some common types of arguments.

Causal Arguments

• In this type of argument, you argue that something has caused something else. For example, you might explore the causes of the decline of large mammals in the world’s ocean and make a case for your cause.

Evaluation Arguments

• In this type of argument, you make an argumentative evaluation of something as “good” or “bad,” but you need to establish the criteria for “good” or “bad.” For example, you might evaluate a children’s book for your education class, but you would need to establish clear criteria for your evaluation for your audience.

Proposal Arguments

• In this type of argument, you must propose a solution to a problem. First, you must establish a clear problem and then propose a specific solution to that problem. For example, you might argue for a proposal that would increase retention rates at your college.

Narrative Arguments

• In this type of argument, you make your case by telling a story with a clear point related to your argument. For example, you might write a narrative about your experiences with standardized testing in order to make a case for reform.

Rebuttal Arguments

• In a rebuttal argument, you build your case around refuting an idea or ideas that have come before. In other words, your starting point is to challenge the ideas of the past.

Definition Arguments

• In this type of argument, you use a definition as the starting point for making your case. For example, in a definition argument, you might argue that NCAA basketball players should be defined as professional players and, therefore, should be paid.

https://assessments.lumenlearning.co...essments/20277

Essay Examples

• Click here to read an argumentative essay on the consequences of fast fashion . Read it and look at the comments to recognize strategies and techniques the author uses to convey her ideas.
• In this example, you’ll see a sample argumentative paper from a psychology class submitted in APA format. Key parts of the argumentative structure have been noted for you in the sample.

Link to Learning

For more examples of types of argumentative essays, visit the Argumentative Purposes section of the Excelsior OWL .

Contributors and Attributions

• Argumentative Essay. Provided by : Excelsior OWL. Located at : https://owl.excelsior.edu/rhetorical-styles/argumentative-essay/ . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Image of a man with a heart and a brain. Authored by : Mohamed Hassan. Provided by : Pixabay. Located at : pixabay.com/illustrations/decision-brain-heart-mind-4083469/. License : Other . License Terms : pixabay.com/service/terms/#license

Do uniforms make schools better?

by: Marian Wilde | Updated: March 1, 2024

Print article

Schools, parents, and students frequently clash over the issue of regulating what students may and may not wear to school. These controversies often pegged to the culture war of the moment touch on everything from gender and sexuality to politics, race, and religion. In 2021, a group of about 50 students in Georgia protested their middle school’s dress code for being discriminatory against BIPOC girls by wearing t-shirts every Friday emblazoned with the words “sexist,” “racist,” and “classist.” In 2022, a fight between students, staff, and police officers broke out at a Pennsylvania high school when hats and hoodies were banned as part of a revision by the school board to the school’s dress code. And in 2023, two Michigan middle schoolers, via their mother, sued their school district after they were banned from wearing “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts.

Are school uniforms the best solution to this contentious debate? If every student is wearing the same outfit, will a host of campus problems be solved? Researchers are divided over how much of an impact — if any — dress policies have on student learning. There are multiple studies with conflicting conclusions, plus books such as 2018’s The Debate About School Uniforms , but the argument wears on, with a list of pros and cons on each side.

Why do some public schools have uniforms?

In the 1980s, public schools were often compared unfavorably to Catholic schools. Noting the perceived benefit that uniforms conferred upon Catholic schools, some public schools decided to adopt a school uniform policy.

President Clinton provided momentum to the school uniform movement when he said in his 1996 State of the Union speech, “If it means teenagers will stop killing each other over designer jackets, then our public schools should be able to require their students to wear school uniforms.”

The pros and cons of school uniforms

According to proponents, school uniforms:.

• Help prevent gangs from forming on campus

• Encourage discipline

• Help students resist peer pressure to buy trendy clothes

• Help identify intruders in the school

• Diminish economic and social barriers between students

• Increase a sense of belonging and school pride

• Improve attendance

Opponents contend that school uniforms:

• Violate a student’s right to freedom of expression

• Are simply a Band-Aid on the issue of school violence

• Make students a target for bullies from other schools

• Are a financial burden for poor families

• Are an unfair additional expense for parents who pay taxes for a free public education

• Are difficult to enforce in public schools

Uniforms vs. dress codes

Schools and districts vary widely in how closely they adhere to the concept of uniformity.

What’s a dress code?

Generally, dress codes are more relaxed than uniform policies. Sometimes, however, dress codes are quite strict with requirements that are potentially viewed as biased based on race or gender. In 2020, two Black male students in Texas, cousins with West Indian heritage, were suspended for wearing dreadlocks in supposed violation of the district’s hair and grooming policy, part of the dress code. The elder one, a senior, was told he couldn’t attend prom or graduation until his dreads were trimmed. In 2022, girls on the track team at an Albany, NY high school were sent home for wearing sports bras at practice.

Uniforms are certainly easier for administrators to enforce than dress codes, largely because the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) can be depended upon to protect a student’s “right to express themselves.” The ACLU believes dress codes are often used to, “shame girls, force students to conform to gender stereotypes… punish students who wear political and countercultural messages. Such policies can be used as cover for racial discrimination… Dress codes can also infringe on a student’s religious rights…” To successfully enforce a dress code, insists the ACLU, the school must prove the student’s attire, “is disruptive to school activities.”

The ACLU’s dress code stance is regularly supported by federal courts , like the 2023 lower court ruling in North Carolina that ended a charter school decree that girls couldn’t wear pants to school. ACLU lawyers claimed this violated Title IX because the dress code “discriminated against female students by limiting their ability to fully participate in school activities, such as using the playground.” The U.S. Supreme Court later declined to take up a case challenging the lower court’s ruling.

Check with your school to see what the dress code is, as they can be fairly specific. In Tulsa, Oklahoma, for example, the dress code prohibits :

• Symbols, mottoes, words or acronyms that convey crude, vulgar, profane, violent, death-oriented, gang-related, sexually explicit, or sexually suggestive messages.
• Symbols, mottoes, words or acronyms advertising tobacco, alcohol, or illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia.
• Symbols, mottoes, words or acronyms identifying a student as a member of a secret or overtly antisocial group or gang or that identifies a student as a member of an organization that professes violence or hatred toward one’s fellow man.
• Visible and permanent tattoos/brands incompatible with the standards set forth herein shall be covered to prohibit their display.
• Excessively large or baggy clothes

What’s a uniform?

School uniforms worldwide can widely range from nondescript to bizarre. (Extreme examples from China, Australia, and the UK on this YouTube video ) Most public school outfits in the USA are quite casual, with a “ common type ” for boys often a polo shirt in a solid color, with pants in khaki, black, or navy blue. A girl’s uniform is often a skirt and a white buttoned-up shirt. Dress shoes are frequently required for both genders.

In the United States, low-income families spend an average of $249 on a child’s school uniform annually, far less than the typical Australian student’s $578. But still, the cost is sometimes viewed as unfair because public education is intended to be free, paid by tax dollars, not “a stress for families on lower incomes.” The ACLU believes that public schools should provide free school uniforms , because the expense is unconstitutional, and it increases wealth inequity.

What research says about school uniforms

In 2006, Virginia Draa, professor at Youngstown State University, reviewed the impact of school uniforms at 64 public high schools that had larger percentages of economically disadvantaged and minority students than other urban schools. Her conclusion surprised her: “I really went into this thinking uniforms don’t make a difference, but I came away seeing that they do… I was absolutely floored.” Her analysis determined that the schools with uniforms improved their students attendance, and graduation rates rose an average almost 11 percent.

In 2022, Ohio State University and University of Pennsylvania researchers reached a contrary opinion in their report titled “ School Uniforms and Students Behavior: Is There a Link? ” Their view was that, in general, evidence that school uniforms improve social skills in the students was “inconclusive.” The solitary praise they provided to uniform-wearing was noting there was “some indication that low-income students in schools that required uniforms demonstrated better school attendance than low-income students in schools that did not.”

What to believe? Jury is still out.

What do students think about uniforms?

A student discussion: pros and cons of uniforms

Editor’s note: This video is part of our high school milestones series about communication skills. The students in this video discuss the pros and cons of school uniforms.

A University of Nevada, Reno, survey of 1,848 middle school students, published in 2022, revealed that 90 percent did not like wearing a uniform to school . Only 30 percent believed the uniforms “might reduce discipline issues, a mere 17 percent thought the uniform helped them focus at school, 34 percent believed their school was safer due to the uniforms and 37 percent said, “I worry less about my appearance” due to the uniform requirement.”

An earlier study, also in Nevada, displayed similar unpopularity with newly instituted uniforms among middle school students. However, when the researchers looked into school discipline and local police records and compared them to the prior year’s data, discipline referrals were down 10 percent, there were 63 percent fewer police log reports, and incidences of graffiti, fights, and gang-related activity were all down.

It’s a big issue

A new trend is the mounting pressure to establish dress codes for teachers. Apparently, the same casual mindset toward revealing outfits is cropping up in the ranks of our teachers.

The debate over uniforms in public schools encompasses many larger issues than simply what children should wear to school. It touches on issues of school improvement, freedom of expression, and hot-button culture wars. It’s no wonder the debate rages on.

Homes Nearby

Homes for rent and sale near schools

Why your neighborhood school closes for good – and what to do when it does

5 things for Black families to consider when choosing a school

6 surprising things insiders look for when assessing a high school

Surprising things about high school

Yes! Sign me up for updates relevant to my child's grade.

Please enter a valid email address

Thank you for signing up!

Server Issue: Please try again later. Sorry for the inconvenience

Why Homework Should Be Banned: Exposing the Downsides

Ever find yourself tangled in the timeless debate over homework's place in the grand scheme of education? We've all been there, juggling report writing, math headaches, and the daunting task of creating scientific masterpieces. But here's the real head-scratcher: Is homework truly the indispensable learning buddy we've always thought it to be, or is it time for a reevaluation? Some swear by its magic and explain why should homework not be banned, while others can't help but wonder if it's become more of a cumbersome load on our students. Surveys even hint at a connection between too much schoolwork and the stress and health woes of our budding scholars. Beyond the academic hustle, there's a rallying cry for an all-out homework ban for a host of other reasons.

In the spirit of our friendly exploration, let's roll up our sleeves and delve into the nitty-gritty of why some folks champion schoolwork as a necessary companion on the learning journey while others share reasons why homework should be banned. Our essay writing service experts will sift through real-life success stories of schools or places where the ban-homework movement has gained traction, exploring the outcomes and implications.

10 Reasons Why Homework Should Be Banned

Now, let's shine a spotlight on the crux of the matter – the top 10 reasons why the cry for banned homework is getting louder.

Too Much Homework

School takes up all time, messes with sleep and health, no time for exercise.

• Makes Stress and Anxiety Worse
• Less Time to Hang Out with Friends
• Not Enough Time for Myself
• Less Time with Family
• Fights with Parents
• Limits Student Freedom

From the perennial issue of too much homework to the struggle for personal time and the toll it takes on sleep, health, and relationships, each reason is a thread in the tapestry of the anti-homework movement. So, let our ' do my homework ' writers uncover the challenges that homework poses on multiple fronts.

 Tired of Wrestling with Homework Monsters?

Let our team of academic superheroes swoop in! Essays, assignments, no challenge too big.

Ah, the perpetual struggle against the mountainous pile of homework! It seems like every student's lament, doesn't it? The argument for why homework should be banned isn't about shirking responsibilities but rather about striking a balance. When the load becomes overwhelming, it can lead to stress, burnout, and a loss of the joy of learning.

Imagine the energy and enthusiasm that high school or college students could channel into exploring their passions or honing other essential life skills if they weren't constantly buried beneath assignments. The quantity of homework should complement the learning process, not overshadow it. A bit of reflection on the purpose and effectiveness of each assignment might just be the key to making homework a valuable tool rather than a source of dread.

But fear not! Here's a game-changer to transform your homework woes into a breeze – our homework planner online . This nifty tool is all about making school life simpler and boosting your study game. Easily keep tabs on tasks, exams, seminars, and even classmates' birthdays. No more missing deadlines – get timely notifications for upcoming classes, pending homework, and approaching exams. Take the reins of your schedule, customize your school calendar, and stay ahead with our clever homework manager. You can even hand off tasks to experienced experts. Consider it your go-to for acing your academic adventure!

The education system plays a pivotal role in shaping young minds, but should it consume every waking hour? The argument here isn't against the significance of learning but rather about reclaiming a sense of balance. School should be a place that nurtures well-rounded individuals, not a 24/7 commitment that leaves no room for personal exploration and growth. The discussion around the need for a homework ban amplifies this call for a more balanced and holistic educational experience.

Think about it—what about those hobbies that spark creativity, the friendships that build character, and the downtime that allows for self-reflection? When school takes up all the time, these crucial elements of personal development often fall by the wayside. The question then becomes: Are we preparing students for a life of constant work, or are we instilling in them the tools to navigate a diverse and fulfilling existence? It's time to reconsider the hours spent on school-related activities and ensure that students have the time and space to become well-rounded individuals who are not just academically adept but also equipped for the complexities of the real world.

Picture this: a student burning the midnight oil to complete assignments, sacrificing precious hours of sleep. It's a scenario all too common in the realm of repetitive homework tasks, and it begs the question—what's the cost to one's well-being? Sleep is not a luxury; it's a biological necessity. When homework interferes with this fundamental aspect of health, it becomes a cause for concern.

The repercussions extend beyond just feeling groggy in class. Lack of sleep can impact cognitive function, memory, and even mood. The irony is that the very tasks meant to enhance learning might be hindering it by compromising the health of students. Perhaps it's time to ask whether the pursuit of academic excellence should come at the expense of a good night's sleep and overall well-being.

In the hustle and bustle of academic demands, physical activity often takes a back seat. The argument here isn't about making everyone a fitness enthusiast but recognizing the vital role exercise plays in maintaining a healthy body and mind. When homework becomes an insurmountable obstacle, the opportunity for physical activity diminishes, contributing to a sedentary lifestyle that can have long-term consequences.

Exercise is not just about staying fit; it's a natural stress reliever and mood enhancer. By sidelining physical activity, we risk compromising not only physical health but also mental and emotional well-being. As we advocate for a balanced and holistic education, let's consider the importance of creating space for exercise and fostering healthy habits that extend beyond the confines of the classroom.

More Stress and Worry

Our dissertation service experts believe that homework, when excessive, can turn into a breeding ground for stress and worry. It's not just about meeting deadlines; it's about the toll it takes on the mental health of students. The pressure to excel academically is a given, but when the scale tips too far, it can result in a generation of students burdened with anxiety and worry.

Education is meant to be empowering, not anxiety-inducing. The worry about grades, completing assignments, and maintaining a stellar academic record can overshadow the joy of learning. Striking a balance that allows for intellectual growth without compromising mental health is not just a plea for sanity but a call for a more compassionate approach to education. After all, education should be a journey that enlightens, not a path wrought with stress and constant apprehension.

Homework Gets in the Way of Friends

Remember the laughter, camaraderie, and shared moments with friends? Excessive homework seems to have a knack for wedging itself between these precious connections. Friendships are not just a delightful aspect of student life; they contribute significantly to social development, emotional support, and the overall well-being of individuals.

When homework monopolizes time, the opportunity to nurture these vital friendships dwindles. It's not merely about hanging out; it's about the exchanges that shape character, build resilience, and offer perspectives beyond the confines of textbooks. Perhaps it's time to question whether homework should stand as a barrier to the formation of these meaningful relationships.

Not Enough Time for Oneself

In the race to complete assignments and meet deadlines, one casualty often overlooked is personal time. Every student needs moments of solitude and self-reflection. It's in these moments that passions are discovered, creativity thrives, and a sense of self deepens. Yet, the perpetual avalanche of homework leaves little room for this crucial aspect of personal development.

Time for oneself is not a luxury but a necessity. It's the space where one explores interests, dreams, and aspirations beyond the academic realm. When homework becomes an all-consuming force, it deprives students of the opportunity to discover their unique strengths and inclinations. The discussion on why should homework be banned calls for the reevaluation of the true purpose of education – is it merely about grades, or is it also about nurturing individuals who are self-aware, curious, and passionate about their own journeys?

Less Family Time

Family, the cornerstone of support and love, often takes a backseat when homework becomes the tyrant of time. Quality family time is not just a sentimental ideal; it plays a pivotal role in shaping values, building strong foundations, and fostering emotional well-being. However, when the demands of school spill over into every corner of a student's life and there is constant worry about how to write a coursework , family time inevitably suffers.

Think about the conversations around the dinner table, the shared activities, and the simple joys of being together. Excessive homework disrupts these essential moments, potentially eroding the very support system that is crucial for a student's success and happiness. It's a call to reconsider the balance between academic pursuits and the priceless moments spent with family members – moments that contribute to a well-rounded, emotionally resilient individual.

Arguments with Parents

Homework often becomes the battlefield for nightly skirmishes between parents and students. While parents may perceive themselves as enforcers of responsibility, the constant struggle over completing assignments can strain the parent-child relationship. It's not just about completing tasks; it's about the quality of family interactions and the emotional toll these conflicts can take.

The pressure to excel academically, often exacerbated by homework, can create a tense atmosphere at home. Arguments over study hours, completion of assignments, and academic performance can overshadow the nurturing and supportive role that parents are ideally meant to play, emphasizing the importance of parents' support. The discussion around a potential homework ban prompts us to question whether the burden of excessive homework is fostering a healthy parent-child dynamic or inadvertently becoming a source of familial tension.

Limits Students' Freedom

Ah, freedom—the essence of youth. Yet, excessive homework can feel like an invisible chains, restricting the very freedom that defines the student experience. Beyond academic pursuits, students need the freedom to explore, create, and discover their passions. At our college essay writing service , we firmly believe when homework becomes an all-encompassing force, it infringes upon this fundamental aspect of personal growth.

Think about the projects left unfinished, the books unread, and the hobbies neglected. The lack of freedom extends beyond the physical confines of the classroom; it infiltrates the very essence of what it means to be a student. It's time to reflect on whether education should be a process of liberation, encouraging students to spread their intellectual wings, or if it should be a rigid structure that confines them to a predetermined path.

 Drowning in Homework Havoc?

Fear not! Our team of homework heroes is here to turn your academic struggles into victories.

Why Should Homework Not Be Banned: Exploring 5 Benefits

Now that we've delved into the challenges and concerns surrounding homework let's pivot to the other side of the debate. While there are valid arguments against excessive homework, it's essential to consider the potential benefits that well-structured assignments can bring to a student's academic and personal development. Let's explore five reasons why homework, when approached thoughtfully, may have its merits.

Instills Discipline in Students

According to our essay writer , assigning homework in moderation serves as a valuable tool for instilling discipline in students. The process of setting aside time, managing tasks, and adhering to deadlines cultivates essential skills that extend far beyond the academic realm. It lays the foundation for time management, responsibility, and a strong work ethic—qualities that are undeniably beneficial as students transition into adulthood.

Consider homework as a training ground for life's challenges. Completing assignments teaches students to prioritize, organize, and persevere in the face of tasks that may not always align with their immediate desires. In this sense, homework becomes more than just a task; it becomes a character-building exercise that prepares students for the responsibilities they'll encounter in various facets of life.

Fosters Improved Understanding Among Peers

Collaboration is a cornerstone of effective learning, and well-designed homework assignments can facilitate improved understanding among peers. When considering why should homework not be banned, doing group projects or assignments with others not only helps students grasp the subject more deeply but also gets them better at teamwork.

Homework that encourages group discussions, knowledge sharing, and joint problem-solving contributes to a dynamic learning environment. Students learn not only from textbooks and lectures but also from the diverse perspectives of their peers. This fosters a sense of community within the classroom, promoting a cooperative spirit that extends beyond the completion of assignments and into the broader context of learning and growth.

Equips Students for Real-World Challenges

One of the often-overlooked benefits of homework lies in its capacity to prepare students for the challenges they'll face in the real world. Assignments that require critical thinking, problem-solving, and independent research mirror the complexities of professional and personal life beyond the classroom.

Consider a scenario where students are tasked with solving real-world problems, conducting interviews, or researching current events. These assignments not only deepen their understanding of the subject matter but also equip them with the practical skills needed for navigating the complexities of adulthood. Homework, when designed with an eye toward relevance, becomes a bridge between theoretical knowledge and the practical application of that knowledge in the real world.

Cultivates Skills and Expertise

Homework, when thoughtfully crafted, serves as a platform for students to cultivate a diverse set of skills and expertise. Beyond the acquisition of knowledge, assignments can hone analytical thinking, research skills, and the ability to articulate ideas effectively. Whether it's a written essay, a science project, or a math homework paper , each task contributes to the development of specific skills that are crucial for success in various fields.

Consider the student who delves into a research project or a creative endeavor as part of their homework. This isn't merely about completing an assignment; it's an opportunity for them to explore their interests, deepen their expertise in a particular area, and develop a passion for lifelong learning. Homework, in this sense, becomes a vehicle for skill development and personal growth, nurturing students into well-rounded individuals equipped to face the challenges of a rapidly evolving world.

Fosters a Sense of Responsibility

Responsibility is a trait that transcends academic achievements and holds immense value in the broader spectrum of life. Homework, when approached with a sense of accountability, instills in students the importance of meeting obligations and honoring commitments.

Consider the student who consistently completes assignments, meets deadlines, and takes ownership of their academic responsibilities. This isn't just about earning good grades; it's about fostering a sense of responsibility that will serve them well in future endeavors. So, when arguing for why should homework not be banned, it becomes a microcosm of life's demands, teaching students the significance of reliability and accountability—qualities that are indispensable in both personal and professional spheres.

Banning Homework: Successful Cases

As the debate over homework rages on, some educational institutions and communities have taken a bold step—banning or significantly reducing homework. Let's explore a few stories of schools that have embraced this approach and the impact it has had on students, families, and the overall learning environment.

The Case of P.S. 116 in New York City:

In a groundbreaking move, P.S. 116, a public elementary school in New York City, decided to ban traditional homework for its students. Instead, the school focused on fostering a love for reading and encouraged students to engage in activities outside the classroom. The decision was based on research indicating that excessive homework might not necessarily lead to improved academic outcomes, and it could even contribute to stress and burnout.

The results were compelling. Parents reported a positive change in their children's attitude toward learning, with elementary students becoming more motivated and enthusiastic. Teachers noted that without the burden of traditional homework, they had more time for meaningful interactions with students during class hours. The experiment not only challenged conventional norms but also showcased the potential benefits of reimagining the role of homework in the learning process.

Finland's Education System:

Finland, often lauded for its innovative approach to education, has significantly reduced the emphasis on homework in its schools. Instead of focusing on quantity, Finnish educators prioritize the quality of instruction during school hours. Students are encouraged to engage in extracurricular activities, spend time with their families, and pursue interests outside of the academic realm.

The success of this approach is reflected in Finland's consistently high rankings in global education assessments. Students in Finland not only perform well academically but also report higher levels of satisfaction and well-being. The Finnish model challenges the notion that copious amounts of homework are essential for academic success and underscores the importance of a balanced and holistic approach to education.

The Harris Cooper Study:

While not a case of a specific school, the work of Harris Cooper, a renowned homework researcher, provides valuable insights into the impact of homework. Cooper's comprehensive analysis of various studies on homework found that, in elementary school, homework has little to no effect on academic achievement. In high school, the correlation between homework and achievement is modest, and excessive homework can have negative effects on well-being.

These cases and studies collectively suggest that reevaluating the role of homework can lead to positive outcomes for students and contribute to a more balanced and effective education system. As schools and communities continue to experiment with homework policies, these stories offer valuable lessons in shaping the future of education.

Final Outlook

So, here we are, exploring the reasons people say why homework should be banned, a mix of worries and possible advantages. It's a bit like navigating the ever-shifting currents of education, isn't it?

As we contemplate the future of education, let's pause. Let's ponder a landscape where the weight of assignments doesn't overshadow the joy of discovery. It's a quest for balance—where academic rigor dances with personal well-being, creating a melody that echoes through the halls of learning.

So, here's to an education that nurtures not just the mind but the spirit, an education that cherishes the uniqueness of each learner. As we stride forward, let's envision a realm where homework isn't a battleground but a bridge to knowledge and where the pursuit of excellence walks hand in hand with the pursuit of happiness. Cheers to finding that sweet spot in the symphony of education!

Related Articles

Banning mobile phones in schools: beneficial or risky? Here’s what the evidence says

Distinguished Research Professor, Monash University

Disclosure statement

Neil Selwyn receives research funding from the Australian Research Council, Australian Government Office of Learning and Teaching (OLT), Australian Communications Consumer Action Network & AuDA Foundation.

Monash University provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

• Bahasa Indonesia

Victorian education minister James Merlino’s announcement mobile phones will be banned for all students at state primary and secondary schools is certainly a bold move.

The policy has been justified as a direct response to mounting levels of cyberbullying, concerns over distractions and schools struggling with discipline relating to students’ misuse of phones.

Students will have to switch off their phones and store them in lockers from the start of the school day until the final bell. In case of an emergency, parents or guardians can reach their child by calling the school.

The minister said in a statement :

The only exceptions to the ban will be where students use phones to monitor health conditions, or where teachers instruct students to bring their phone for a particular classroom activity.

Whether to allow student use of mobile phones in school is certainly a hot topic in education. The Victorian announcement follows a French government ban on mobiles in school in 2018. Debates on the issue are also taking place in Denmark , Sweden and the United Kingdom .

There is considerable public support for banning mobiles. In our recently conducted survey of more than 2,000 Australian adults, nearly 80% supported a ban on mobile phones in classrooms. Just under one-third supported an outright ban from schools altogether.

Support for a classroom ban was remarkably consistent across different demographics, including political affiliation and age group.

But while banning phones from classrooms, and from school altogether, might seem sensible, there are number of reasons to be cautious. It’s clear we need to carefully consider how we want to make use of digital devices being brought into schools. But previous experience, such as in New York, suggests a blanket ban might introduce even more problems.

And the little research evidence that addresses the issue is mixed.

What’s the evidence?

Reports of cyberbullying have clearly gone up among school-aged children and young people over the past ten years, but the nature and precedents of cyberbullying are complex.

Research suggests there is a large overlap between cyberbullying and traditional forms of bullying, which wouldn’t then follow that digital devices are somehow causing these behaviours.

Cyberbullying also often takes place outside school hours and premises. There is a danger banning phones from classrooms might distract education staff from having to continue with efforts to address the more immediate causes of cyberbullying.

Read more: Teenagers need our support, not criticism, as they navigate life online

There is also a growing literature exploring the links between digital devices and classroom distractions. The presence of phones in the classroom is certainly found to be a source of multi-tasking among students of all ages – some of which can be educationally relevant and much of which might not.

But the impact of these off-task behaviours on student learning outcomes is difficult to determine. A review of 132 academic studies concluded, it is

difficult to determine directions and mechanisms of the causal relations between mobile phone multitasking and academic performance.

There is also a strong sense from classroom research that issues of distraction apply equally to laptops , iPads and other digital devices.

All told, the sense from academic literature is that the realities of smartphone use in classrooms are complex and decidedly messy. Our own research into how smartphones are being used in Victorian classrooms highlighted the difficulties teachers face in policing student use (what some teachers described as requiring “five minutes of firefighting” at the beginning of every lesson).

Despite this, we also found instances of students using smartphones for a range of beneficial purposes – from impromptu information seeking to live-streaming lessons for sick classmates.

Read more: Schools are asking students to bring digital devices to class, but are they actually being used?

These benefits are also reflected in classroom studies elsewhere in the world. Research from Stanford University has demonstrated , for instance, that with proper support and preparation, teachers in even the most challenging schools can “build on the ways students already use technology outside of school to help them learn in the classroom”.

There is now a whole academic field known as “ m-Learning ” where researchers have explored the pedagogical and learning advantages of using mobile devices (including phones) in lessons.

But what about a blanket ban from school altogether? Experience from elsewhere suggests enforcing a mobile ban in schools may not be as easy as it sounds.

What we can learn from others

The New South Wales government announced a review into the benefits and risks of mobile phone use in schools in June 2018, led by child psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg. At the review’s completion, the government said it would only ban mobile phones from the state’s primary schools, leaving secondary schools free to make their own choice.

We recognise that technology plays an important and increasing role as students progress through their education […] We want to give secondary schools the flexibility to balance the benefits and risks of technology in the way that best supports their students.

Perhaps the most pertinent example is the ban enforced in New York City from 2006, that was eventually lifted in 2015.

The reasons given for this reversal highlighted several of the concerns the new ban in Victoria will likely face. They include practical difficulties of enforcing a ban in the classroom being exacerbated by banning of phone use during break times and lunchtimes.

First, it was clear the New York ban was being inconsistently enforced by schools – with better resourced schools in more affluent areas more likely to bend the rules and permit student use. In contrast, schools in lower-income areas with metal detectors were more likely to be rigidly enforcing the ban.

Other motivations for lifting the ban were concerns over student safety such as the need for students to contact family members during break times and lunchtimes. Families were also incurring costs to store phones securely outside of the school. There was also a recognition teachers should be trusted to exercise their professional judgement as to how they could be making good educational use of devices in their lessons.

Read more: Should mobile phones be banned in schools? We asked five experts

At the same time, it was reckoned government resources were better directed toward supporting students to learn how to use technology responsibly through cyber-safety lessons.

All these reasons are as relevant now to Victorian schools as they were to New York City schools in 2015. The use (and non-use) of mobile phones in schools is certainly an issue we need to have a proper conversation about. But it might not be as clear-cut as the recent policy announcements suggest.

• Mobile phones
• technology in schools
• mobile phone ban

Faculty of Law - Academic Appointment Opportunities

Events and Communications Coordinator

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Debate: Should Junk Food be Banned in Schools? Essay

Example 1: Supporting Arguments: Junk Food Should be Banned in Schools

Example 2: supporting arguments: junk food should be banned in schools, example 3: opposing arguments: junk food should not be banned in schools, example 4: opposing arguments: junk food should not be banned in schools.

Related Topics

• Old Version
• Privacy Policy

Home — Essay Samples — Education — Homework — Argumentative Essay Should Homework Be Banned

Argumentative Essay Should Homework Be Banned

• Categories: Homework

About this sample

Words: 804 |

Published: Mar 14, 2024

Words: 804 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Education

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 552 words

3 pages / 1225 words

1 pages / 591 words

1 pages / 512 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Homework

Completing assignments on time transcends the realm of punctuality; it is an embodiment of dedication, accountability, and effective time management. The importance of this practice extends beyond the classroom, influencing [...]

Homework has been a longstanding tradition in education, serving as a tool for reinforcing classroom learning, developing study habits, and promoting independent thinking. However, it has also been a subject of debate, with [...]

In conclusion, there are compelling reasons why homework should be banned. Its negative impact on students' mental health, lack of evidence supporting its benefits, and potential for alternative approaches to promote learning [...]

Homework has long been a controversial topic in education, with some arguing that it is essential for reinforcing learning and developing crucial skills, while others believe it can be detrimental to students' well-being and [...]

Education has been crucial in the formation of our society, and so has homework. Homework has been around since public schooling was invented, and thus, it’s a rarely questioned practice. However, homework has fallen under [...]

No homework policy by our government had a greater help in building stronger student-parents relation because no homework policy is privilege to them it has pleasant impact in each part of family especially for the student. [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Argumentative Essay Example: Cell Phones Should Be Banned in Schools

Do you ever sit in a class and realize that students aren’t paying attention because they are distracted by their cell phones? In free periods, just about every student sits on their phone with their head down. Why waste time when you can spend that free time doing school work or interacting with others? In other classes, students are missing out on information because they are on their cell phones. Cell phones are just setting up students for failure. Do we really want students to fail? No. Cell phones should be banned in schools. 

The main reason why students miss out on  information is because of cell phones. When students sit on their cell phones during class, it makes it very difficult for them to stay focused. Since the use of cell phones has increased, cyberbullying is also starting to increase. During the school day, if a student sees that they are left out of a group chat or sees a photo to which they compare themselves too, can make it hard for them to stay focused throughout the school day.

Along with students being distracted, cell phones have caused a decline in communication between students. Joe Clemet, a U.S. government teacher, and Matt Miles, also a teacher, have said that “free periods have deteriorated from lively talk among students and teachers to silent screen reading, each student in a little world.” Clement thought that he could bring back the lively talk of students during a free period class by restricting cell phones. Students responded by not showing up and going to a different free period class where cell phones weren’t  restricted. It has also been found that cell phone use increases the rate of depression. Face-to-face time with friends decreases depression. Creating a school environment without cell phones can help students have a face-to-face interaction with others. This will help create a healthy environment for students in school. 

Furthermore, cell phone use does not boost achievement. Students who are on their cell phones during class time, tend to perform worse on tests (usually a full letter grade or more). According to a study in 2017, some participants were told to keep their cell phones nearby, and the other participants were told to put their cell phones in a different room. Each participant was asked to perform a memory task. The participants with their cell phones did much worse than the participants who didn’t have their cell phones. For instance, in one of my classes, I see students who don’t even pick up their heads because they are on their cell phones. When it's time for them to take a test, they have no idea what they are doing. When they get their test grade back, they seem to not know why they performed so poorly. They performed so poorly because they were distracted by their cell phone. They don’t realize all the information they missed out on. Some schools have changed their cell phone policy and they saw an increase in test scores by 6.41%. This shows that cell phones are causing students to perform poorly. 

Finally, some schools believe that the use of cell phones should not be banned. Some schools have even worked cell phones into the daily curriculum. From text reminders to school apps, cell phones are making the learning system much easier. Even though cell phones are making the learning system easier,  there will be a higher chance that students will cheat, cell phones will still cause distractions, and there will still be less interaction. Even if cell phones are useful tools for the learning system, they still won’t solve these problems. 

In conclusion, cell phones create an unhealthy environment for students. They cause distractions, failure, and less interactions. Cell phones are an unhealthy distraction for students. They should be banned in schools.

Related Samples

• Do We All Need Education Essay Example
• Personal Narrative Essay: My First Day at College
• The Role of Duolingo in the Language Learning Industry (Essay Example)
• What is Success to You Essay Example
• The Benefits of Homework Free Essay Example
• How To Being A Good Student Essay
• Pledge of Allegiance Should Be Mandatory in Schools (Argumentative Essay Example)
• Persuasive Essay: Romeo and Juliet Should Be Read by High School Students
• Essay on Learning Style Through Cognitive Development of Children
• Persuasive Essay Sample on Why College Tuition Should Be Lowered?

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

Argumentative Essay: Standardized Testing Should Be Banned

“Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted. “ ( Albert Einstein ) On May 17th, 1921 Thoms Edison gave Albert Einstein a standardized test; he failed it. Many wondered how one of the greatest minds ever failed a simple test ? Einstein claimed that he had no care for information he could find in a book. Over the last decade, standardized tests have become more and more popular around schools in America. A standardized test is a yearly test to measure students' growth from each section of the school year, beginning, middle and end. People in our society are now starting to realize these tests are giving us inaccurate results and not correlating to any amount of success in the real world. Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, Walt Disney; these are all incredible people and minds that changed the world forever but they did terrible on standardized exams. Standardized testing should be banned from all schools across America because it affects kids' curriculum poorly and is a false predictor of success later in life.

Standardized testing should be banned because it puts a lot of pressure on teachers, students, and parents. These tests also seem to affect students' curriculum since teachers feel the need to teach the test. Students and teachers are oftentimes very nervous and stressed when it comes to taking standardized tests because when a student does not do well or meet the “ state “ level score, it can cause the teacher and student to lose their dignity and be frowned upon. A study done by Swope and Miner (2006) showed that standardized testing can determine teaching and learning in a negative way that affects children. Standardized tests only test factual knowledge and no creative aspects of thinking and learning. The more schools use standardized tests, the more the curriculum becomes standardized. Even though teachers feel the need to “ teach the test “ for a feeling of security, many students still struggle to learn the material and end up trying to memorize it because they did not get the background information that they would get in a normal curriculum not based on tests.

Standardized tests have been proven to have no relation to success in the real world. Many people still think that their SAT and ACT scores will determine their future but many big names such as Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, Walt Disney, and Ben Franklin have proven that incorrect. Also normative tests were not created by geniuses. They were created by mediocre individuals. Lewis Terman, one of the countries early proponents of standardized testing, was a racist. Edward Thorndike, another pioneer, specialized in rats and mazes. Is that the kind of thinking you want your child to have? Albert Einstein, like any other great thinker of our time or any other time, never created a standardized test (despite failing a lot of them). Pedantic scholars with Ph.Ds in educational testing or educational psychology frequently produce standardized tests. If you want your child or student to have that mindset, then go for it; Big names such as Google are no longer going to take grades and test scores into job candidates applications. They have made this decision due to lack of results correlating between test scores and success/performance on the job. I am almost positive that many other companies will follow in Googles path just because they have a great point and they are one of the biggest companies in the world. The national leaders of our countries K-12 school districts have voted on “ No Confidence “ in the GPA and Standardized testing as a strong determinant of childrens collegiate success. Only 6% of qualified officials state that SAT and ACT scores are the best predictors of success, and a small margin of 5% say that GPA is the best predictor. These pieces of evidence show that the best qualified officals in our country do not believe in the test predicting success, even companies are starting to realize how pointless these tests are. They need to be banned.

Many still think that these standardized test scores are good for children and are good predictors of long-term success. Whether you like it or not, the best method to hold schools accountable for their academic achievement is to use standardized exam data. Ohio, is putting in place a cutting-edge school accountability system. Along with traditional proficiency and college-admissions outcomes, the accountability metrics contain measurements referred to as "student growth" or "value-added" assessments. Also many parents would like to know how their student is doing in school compared to other children and even other schools children, these tests are able to show that. Even though these tests are able to give results on how well a school or a child is doing, these numbers are oftentimes very incorrect due to socioeconomic issues, fluctuations in test scores, lack of creativity in test formats, and more. Some ways we can replace standardized testing is to survey emotional and mental strength because it is proven that these non academic qualities are better predictors of ones success. We also could test more high-order thinking levels and problem solving abilities. Even though standardized tests are able to give results on a child or schools test scores, these test scores can oftentimes be wrong and not show a childs creativity or problem solving abilities.

While the other side of the argument presents a compelling argument, it is still clear that all standardized tests across America should be banned due to teaching memorization learning and it is a false predictor of student success. Based on the evidence mentioned above it is clear that these tests are false predictors of student success based on the people who have done terribly on them. These tests are also ruining these kids' academic experience because the teacher only teaches the test just so when their students do well, they do not lose their dignity. In light of this, parents, children, and teachers need to take a stand against standardized testing as a whole and ban it from all schools across America.

Related Samples

• Essay Example about STAAR Testing
• Free Scholarship Essay Example
• Harvard Law School Application Letter Example
• Application Essay Sample: University of Victoria
• Persuasive Essay Example on Four Day School Week
• Role of Artificial Intelligence in Education (Free Essay Sample)
• My English 101 Experience
• Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Learning for Students at University Essay Example
• Persistence: The Key to Success Essay Sample
• What Merryhill Means To Me Essay Example

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

• Essay Samples
• College Essay
• Writing Tools
• Writing guide

Creative samples from the experts

↑ Return to Essay Samples

Argumentative Essay: Should Corporal Punishment Have a Place in Education?

Corporal punishment is the act of using physical force to punish a student for wrongdoing. It might involve a ruler across the back of the hand or a cane to the rear. Corporal punishment has since been outlawed as a cruel and unusual punishment. In this essay, I explore the for and against of implementing corporal punishment within education.

One reason to bring back corporal punishment is to give power back to teachers again. Teaching staff often struggle to chastise students because current punishments have no intimidation power. If they have no power to intimidate students, there’s nothing to fear and no deterrent. A lack of corporal punishment leaves teachers powerless to prevent bad behavior.

On the other hand, corporal punishment often causes injuries and trauma unnecessarily. Many acts of corporal punishment leave visible marks and bruises. The mental anguish, particularly for vulnerable students, can last a lifetime. This doesn’t have the effect of dealing with bad behavior. It can lead directly to lifelong mental problems.

There are also studies showing corporal punishment has no effect on bad behavior. They demonstrate the behavior altering effects is actually trauma coming to the surface. This can cause chronic low confidence and low self-esteem.

Corporal punishment is a viable alternative to suspension. Children often don’t enjoy school. A suspension from school can send out the message it’s a reward rather than a punishment. Using corporal punishment keeps students in school and punishes them, therefore making it clear it isn’t a reward.

There’s always the risk of it leading to abuse in the classroom, however. Teachers do differ in how hard they hit a student. There’s a difference between a 100-pound female teacher and a 250-pound male teacher delivering corporal punishment. This leads to an uneven system whereby the severity of the punishment largely revolves around luck. It’s unfair on students and only makes abuse by teachers more likely.

When a student is punished severely, parents often have to leave work to collect them and take them home again. It disrupts the school schedule and the parent’s schedule. Constant call-outs could lead to a parent losing their job for being unreliable. It can cause a great deal of damage to a family. Corporal punishment stops this from happening because it places the trust in the hands of the teachers.

Putting trust in teachers isn’t something everyone is willing to do, however. Sexual abuse is a major topic in schools and parents are rightly worried about the chances of this abuse manifesting itself. Abuse comes in many different forms. A male teacher could touch a female student on the breast and claim he was meant to touch her on the shoulder. All corporal punishment does is increase the likelihood of sexual abuse occurring.

These are the main arguments for and against corporal punishment. They discuss the practical aspects and the potential flaws of the system. I believe corporal punishment is a flawed system and there are superior alternatives to discipline, such as expulsion and community service. They offer up a punishment without the abuse.

Follow Us on Social Media

Get more free essays

Send via email

Most useful resources for students:.

• Free Essays Download
• Writing Tools List
• Proofreading Services
• Universities Rating

Contributors Bio

Find more useful services for students

Free plagiarism check, professional editing, online tutoring, free grammar check.

Advertisement

Read TikTok’s legal challenge

• Share full article

A PDF version of this document with embedded text is available at the link below:

Download the original document (pdf)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 1 of 70 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT TIKTOK INC., and BYTEDANCE LTD., V. ) Petitioners, No. 24-1113 MERRICK B. GARLAND, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, (Page 1 of Total) Respondent. PETITION FOR REVIEW OF CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS ACT

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 2 of 70 2. That law 1. Congress has taken the unprecedented step of expressly singling out and banning TikTok: a vibrant online forum for protected speech and expression used by 170 million Americans to create, share, and view videos over the Internet. For the first time in history, Congress has enacted a law that subjects a single, named speech platform to a permanent, nationwide ban, and bars every American from participating in a unique online community with more than 1 billion people worldwide. the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (the "Act") is unconstitutional. Banning Tik Tok is so obviously unconstitutional, in fact, that even the Act's sponsors recognized that reality, and therefore have tried mightily to depict the law not as a ban at all, but merely a regulation of TikTok's ownership. According to its sponsors, the Act responds to TikTok's ultimate ownership by ByteDance Ltd., a company with Chinese subsidiaries whose employees support various Byte Dance businesses, including TikTok. They claim that the Act is not a ban because it offers Byte Dance a choice: divest TikTok's U.S. business or be shut down.1 ― - 1 References to "TikTok Inc." are to the specific U.S. corporate entity that is a Petitioner in this lawsuit and publishes the TikTok platform in the 1 (Page 2 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 3 of 70 3. But in reality, there is no choice. The "qualified divestiture" demanded by the Act to allow TikTok to continue operating in the United States is simply not possible: not commercially, not technologically, not legally. And certainly not on the 270-day timeline required by the Act. Petitioners have repeatedly explained this to the U.S. government, and sponsors of the Act were aware that divestment is not possible. There is no question: the Act will force a shutdown of TikTok by January 19, 2025, silencing the 170 million Americans who use the platform to communicate in ways that cannot be replicated elsewhere. 4. Of course, even if a "qualified divestiture" were feasible, the Act would still be an extraordinary and unconstitutional assertion of power. If upheld, it would allow the government to decide that a company may no longer own and publish the innovative and unique speech United States. References to "TikTok" are to the online platform, which includes both the Tik Tok mobile application and web browser experience. References to “ByteDance Ltd." are to the specific Cayman Islands- incorporated holding company that is identified in the Act and is a Petitioner in this lawsuit. References to "ByteDance" are to the ByteDance group, inclusive of ByteDance Ltd. and relevant operating subsidiaries. TikTok Inc. and ByteDance. Ltd. are together referred to as "Petitioners." (Page 3 of Total) 21

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 4 of 70 platform it created. If Congress can do this, it can circumvent the First. Amendment by invoking national security and ordering the publisher of any individual newspaper or website to sell to avoid being shut down. And for Tik Tok, any such divestiture would disconnect Americans from the rest of the global community on a platform devoted to shared content an outcome fundamentally at odds with the Constitution's commitment to both free speech and individual liberty. 5. There are good reasons why Congress has never before enacted a law like this. Consistent with the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression, the United States has long championed a free and open Internet - and the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that speech "conveyed over the Internet” fully qualifies for “the First Amendment's protections." 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570, 587 (2023). And consistent with the fundamental principles of fairness and equal treatment rooted in the Bill of Attainder Clause and the Fifth Amendment, Congress has never before crafted a two-tiered speech regime with one set of rules for one named platform, and another set of rules for everyone else. (Page 4 of Total) 3

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 5 of 70 6. In dramatic contrast with past enactments that sought to regulate constitutionally protected activity, Congress enacted these extreme measures without a single legislative finding. The Act does not articulate any threat posed by Tik Tok nor explain why TikTok should be excluded from evaluation under the standards Congress concurrently imposed on every other platform. Even the statements by individual Members of Congress and a congressional committee report merely indicate concern about the hypothetical possibility that TikTok could be misused in the future, without citing specific evidence - even though the platform has operated prominently in the United States since it was first launched in 2017. Those speculative concerns fall far short of what is required when First Amendment rights are at stake. 7. Nor is there any indication that Congress considered any number of less restrictive alternatives, such as those that Petitioners developed with the Executive Branch after government agencies began evaluating the security of U.S. user data and the risk of foreign government influence over the platform's content as far back as 2019. While such concerns were never substantiated, Petitioners nevertheless (Page 5 of Total) 4

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 6 of 70 worked with the government for four years on a voluntary basis to develop a framework to address the government's concerns. 8. As part of this engagement, Petitioners have voluntarily invested more than $2 billion to build a system of technological and governance protections sometimes referred to as "Project Texas" - to help safeguard U.S. user data and the integrity of the U.S. TikTok platform against foreign government influence. Petitioners have also made extraordinary, additional commitments in a 90-page draft National Security Agreement developed through negotiations with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States ("CFIUS”), including agreeing to a “shut-down option” that would give the government the authority to suspend TikTok in the United States if Petitioners violate certain obligations under the agreement. 9. Congress tossed this tailored agreement aside, in favor of the politically expedient and punitive approach of targeting for disfavor one publisher and speaker (TikTok Inc.), one speech forum (TikTok), and that forum's ultimate owner (ByteDance Ltd.). Through the Act's two-tiered. structure, Congress consciously eschewed responsible industry-wide. regulation and betrayed its punitive and discriminatory purpose. 5 (Page 6 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 7 of 70 Congress provided every other company however serious a threat to - national security it might pose - paths to avoiding a ban, excluding only Tik Tok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd. Indeed, for any other company's application to be banned, Congress mandated notice and a "public report" describing "the specific national security" concern, accompanied by supporting classified evidence. For Petitioners only, however, there is no statement of reasons and no supporting evidence, with any discussion of the justifications for a ban occurring only behind closed doors. 10. Congress must abide by the dictates of the Constitution even when it claims to be protecting against national security risks: “against [those] dangers ... as against others, the principle of the right to free speech is always the same." Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 628 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Congress failed to do so here, and the Act should be enjoined. 11. Jurisdictional Statement Pursuant to Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the Act, H.R. 815, div. H, 118th Cong., Pub. L. No. 118-50 (April 24, 2024), this Court has original (Page 7 of Total) 6

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 8 of 70 and exclusive jurisdiction over this challenge to the constitutionality of the Act. 2 A. 12. Background and Nature of Proceedings TikTok Is a Speech Platform Used by 170 Million Americans. Tik Tok is an online video entertainment platform designed to provide a creative and entertaining forum for users to express themselves and make connections with others over the Internet. More than 170 million Americans use TikTok every month, to learn about and share information on a range of topics from entertainment, to religion, to - politics. Content creators use the TikTok platform to express their opinions, discuss their political views, support their preferred political candidates, and speak out on today's many pressing issues, all to a global audience of more than 1 billion users. Many creators also use the 2 A copy of the Act is attached to this Petition as Exhibit A. Because this Petition does not involve a challenge to any agency action, it is not governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15(a). Petitioners intend to file a separate motion regarding the procedures governing this original proceeding. Petitioners summarize the pertinent facts and claims below to facilitate this Court's review consistent with the practice of a case-initiating pleading in a court of original jurisdiction, but reserve their rights to present additional facts and arguments in due course. 7 (Page 8 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 9 of 70 platform to post product reviews, business reviews, and travel information and reviews. 13. In the United States, the TikTok platform is provided by Tik Tok Inc., a California-incorporated company that has its principal place of business in Culver City, California and offices in New York, San Jose, Chicago, and Miami, among other locations. TikTok Inc. has thousands of employees in the United States. Like many platforms owned by companies that operate globally, the global TikTok platform is supported not only by those employees, but also by employees of other ByteDance subsidiaries around the globe, including in Singapore, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Germany, South Africa, Australia, and China. Many of the global TikTok platform's functions are spread across different corporate entities and countries, and the global TikTok business is led by a leadership team based in Singapore and the United States. Like other U.S. companies, TikTok Inc. is governed by U.S. law. 14. Tik Tok Inc.'s ultimate parent company is ByteDance Ltd., a Cayman Islands-incorporated equity holding company. Byte Dance was founded in 2012 by Chinese entrepreneurs. Over time, the company sought funding to fuel growth, as is common in the technology sector, 8 (Page 9 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 10 of 70 which resulted in the issuance of additional equity and the dilution of existing shares. Today, approximately 58 percent of ByteDance Ltd. is owned by global institutional investors (such as BlackRock, General Atlantic, and Susquehanna International Group), 21 percent is owned by the company's founder (a Chinese national who lives in Singapore), and 21 percent is owned by employees including approximately 7,000 Americans. 15. ByteDance launched TikTok in May 2017 in over 150 countries, including the United States.³ Since its launch, TikTok has become one of the world's most popular applications, with over 1 billion users worldwide. As of January 2024, more than 170 million Americans use TikTok on a monthly basis. 16. Users primarily view content on TikTok through its "For You" page, which presents a collection of videos curated by TikTok's proprietary recommendation engine. The recommendation engine customizes each user's content feed based on how the user interacts with 3 Tik Tok was later relaunched in August 2018 following a transaction involving the company Musical.ly. See generally Petition for Review, Tik Tok Inc. v. CFIUS, No. 20-1444 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 10, 2020). 9 (Page 10 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 11 of 70 the content that the user watches. TikTok's popularity is based in large part on the effectiveness of the recommendation engine. The source code for TikTok's recommendation engine was originally developed by ByteDance engineers based in China, and the engine is customized for operations in TikTok's various global markets, including in the United States. TikTok is not offered in mainland China. 17. Aside from TikTok, ByteDance has developed and operates more than a dozen other online platforms and software applications for use in U.S. and international markets, including for content-sharing, video and music editing, e-commerce, gaming, and enterprise productivity. B. 18. The Government Previously Made Unlawful Attempts to Ban TikTok. Petitioners' efforts to address the U.S. government's asserted concerns regarding the TikTok platform date back to 2019. At that time, Petitioners began engaging with CFIUS, which had initiated a review of ByteDance Ltd.'s 2017 acquisition of Musical.ly, another Internet-based video-sharing platform. (Page 11 of Total) 10

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 12 of 70 19. Petitioners were in the early stages of engaging with CFIUS on a voluntary basis to address the government's concerns, when on August 6, 2020, President Trump abruptly issued an executive order purporting to ban TikTok under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA”), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701-08. See 85 Fed. Reg. 48,637 (the "Ban Order"). Two separate district courts preliminarily enjoined the Ban Order, concluding (among other things) that it exceeded the President's IEEPA authority. TikTok Inc. v. Trump, 490 F. Supp. 3d 73, 83 (D.D.C. 2020); TikTok Inc. v. Trump, 507 F. Supp. 3d 92, 112 (D.D.C. 2020); Marland v. Trump, 498 F. Supp. 3d 624, 641 (E.D. Pa. 2020). 20. Specifically, as these courts correctly recognized, the President's IEEPA authority "to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat" to the nation “does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly ... [any] personal communication” or the importation or exportation “of any information or informational materials.” 50 U.S.C. § 1702(b)(1), (3). These restrictions on the President's IEEPA authority-which Congress expanded through multiple amendments to the statute were designed “to prevent the statute from running afoul of the First Amendment.” United States v. 11 (Page 12 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 13 of 70 Amirnazmi, 645 F.3d 564, 585 (3d Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted); see also Kalantari v. NITV, Inc., 352 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2003) (IEEPA's limitations necessary “to prevent the executive branch from restricting the international flow of materials protected by the First. Amendment"); Marland, 498 F. Supp. 3d at 629 (same). 21. Looking to the foundational First Amendment principles codified in IEEPA's text and legislative history, these courts concluded that President Trump's efforts to ban TikTok violated the statute and raised "serious" constitutional questions (which were unnecessary to decide under the doctrine of constitutional avoidance). Tik Tok Inc., 507 F. Supp. 3d at 112 n.6; TikTok Inc., 490 F. Supp. 3d at 83 n.3. The courts granted the government's motions to voluntarily dismiss its appeals after President Biden withdrew the Ban Order. See Tik Tok Inc. v. Biden, No. 20-5302, 2021 WL 3713550 (D.C. Cir. July 20, 2021); Tik Tok Inc. v. Biden, No. 20-5381, 2021 WL 3082803 (D.C. Cir. July 14, 2021); Marland v. Trump, No. 20-3322, 2021 WL 5346749 (3d Cir. July 14, 2021). 22. Separately, acting on a CFIUS referral, President Trump on August 14, 2020 issued an order under Section 721 of the Defense Production Act, 50 U.S.C. § 4565, purporting to direct ByteDance to 12 (Page 13 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 14 of 70 divest from TikTok's U.S. business and U.S. user data. 85 Fed. Reg. 51,297 (the "Divestment Order"). On November 10, 2020, Petitioners petitioned this Court for review of the Divestment Order and underlying CFIUS actions, arguing, among other things, that the government lacked jurisdiction under the statute. See Petition for Review, TikTok Inc. v. CFIUS, No. 20-1444 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 10, 2020). That petition was held in abeyance in February 2021 on the parties' joint motion to allow the parties to negotiate a resolution. The government has filed status reports every 60 days since then, most recently on April 22, 2024. Those status reports have consistently reported that “[t]he parties continue to be involved in ongoing negotiations” and “[a] beyance continues to be appropriate.” See, e.g., Status Report, Tik Tok Inc. v. CFIUS, No. 20-1444 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 22, 2024). 23. Between January 2021 and August 2022, Petitioners and CFIUS engaged in an intensive, fact-based process to develop a National Security Agreement that would resolve the U.S. government's concerns about whether Chinese authorities might be able to access U.S. user data or manipulate content on TikTok, as well as resolve the pending CFIUS During that time, Petitioners and government officials dispute. 13 (Page 14 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 15 of 70 communicated regularly, often several times a week - including several - in-person meetings about the government's concerns and potential solutions. The result was an approximately 90-page draft National Security Agreement with detailed annexes embodying a comprehensive solution addressing the government's national security concerns. Notably, the draft National Security Agreement provided that all protected U.S. user data (as defined in the agreement) would be stored in the cloud environment of a U.S.-government-approved partner, Oracle Corporation, which would also review and vet the TikTok source code. 24. From Petitioners' perspective, all indications were that they were nearing a final agreement. After August 2022, however, CFIUS without explanation stopped engaging with Petitioners in meaningful discussions about the National Security Agreement. Petitioners repeatedly asked why discussions had ended and how they might be restarted, but they did not receive a substantive response. In March 2023, without providing any justification for why the draft National Security Agreement was inadequate, CFIUS insisted that Byte Dance would be required to divest the U.S. TikTok business. (Page 15 of Total) 14

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 16 of 70 25. Since March 2023, Petitioners have explained to CFIUS, in multiple written communications and in-person meetings, that a divestiture of the U.S. TikTok business from the rest of the integrated global Tik Tok platform and business of the sort now required by the Act is not feasible. CFIUS has never articulated any basis for disagreeing with that assessment, offering instead only a conclusory assertion that the reason ByteDance was not divesting was because it was simply unwilling to do so. The Act nonetheless incorporates precisely such an infeasible divestiture standard. C. 26. A Divestiture that Severs TikTok's U.S. Operations From the Rest of the Globally Integrated TikTok Business Is Not Commercially, Technologically, or Legally Feasible. The Act purports to allow Petitioners to avoid a ban by executing a "qualified divestiture." Sec. 2(c). But that alternative is illusory because, as Petitioners have repeatedly explained to CFIUS, the divestiture of the TikTok U.S. business and its severance from the globally integrated platform of which it is an integral part is not commercially, technologically, or legally feasible. (Page 16 of Total) 15

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 17 of 70 - 27. First, a standalone U.S. TikTok platform would not be commercially viable. TikTok and its competitors are globally integrated platforms where content created in one country is available to users in other countries. Indeed, a substantial part of TikTok's appeal is the richness of the international content available on the platform from global sporting events like the Olympics to international K-pop stars from South Korea, as well as videos created by U.S. creators and enjoyed by audiences worldwide. A divestment of the U.S. TikTok platform, without any operational relationship with the remainder of the global platform, would preclude the interoperability necessary to make international content seamlessly available in the U.S. market and vice versa. As a result, the U.S. TikTok platform would become an “island” where Americans would have an experience detached from the rest of the global platform and its over 1 billion users. Such a limited pool of content, in turn, would dramatically undermine the value and viability of the U.S. TikTok business.4 4 The contemplated qualified divestiture would also undercut the important role currently played by American voices in the global conversation ongoing on TikTok. 16 (Page 17 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 18 of 70 28. Second, precipitously moving all TikTok source code development from ByteDance to a new Tik Tok owner would be impossible as a technological matter. The platform consists of millions of lines of software code that have been painstakingly developed by thousands of engineers over multiple years. Although much of this code is basic infrastructure for running the global TikTok platform and has nothing at all to do with TikTok's recommendation algorithm, the statute requires that all of this code be wrested from Petitioners, so that there is no “operational relationship" between ByteDance and the new U.S. platform. Specifically, to comply with the law's divestiture requirement, that code base would have to be moved to a large, alternative team of engineers a team that does not exist and would have no understanding of the complex code necessary to run the platform. It would take years for an entirely new set of engineers to gain sufficient familiarity with the source code to perform the ongoing, necessary maintenance and development activities for the platform. Moreover, to keep the platform functioning, these engineers would need access to ByteDance software tools, which the Act prohibits. Such a fundamental rearchitecting is not - (Page 18 of Total) 17

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 19 of 70 remotely feasible on anything approaching the 270-day timeframe contemplated by the Act. 29. Third, the Chinese government has made clear that it would not permit a divestment of the recommendation engine that is a key to the success of TikTok in the United States. Like the United States,5 China regulates the export of certain technologies originating there. China's export control rules cover “information processing technologies” such as "personal interactive data algorithms.”6 China's official news agency has reported that under these rules, any sale of recommendation algorithms developed by engineers employed by ByteDance subsidiaries in China, including for TikTok, would require a government license. 5 For example, the U.S. Department of Commerce has issued restrictions on the export to China of advanced chips that can be used to train artificial intelligence models. E.g., Implementation of Additional Export Controls: Certain Advanced Computing Items; Supercomputer and Semiconductor End Use; Updates and Corrections, 88 Fed. Reg. 73458 (Oct. 25, 2023) (to be codified at 15 C.F.R. § 732.2 et seq.). 6 See Karen M. Sutter, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IN11524, China Issues New Export Control Law and Related Policies 2 (2020). 7 Paul Mozur, Raymond Zhong & David McCabe, Tik Tok Deal Is Complicated by New Rules From China Over Tech Exports, N.Y. Times (Aug. 29, 2020), https://perma.cc/L6RB-CTT9. 18 (Page 19 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 20 of 70 China also enacted an additional export control law that "gives the Chinese government new policy tools and justifications to deny and impose terms on foreign commercial transactions."8 China adopted these enhanced export control restrictions between August and October 2020, shortly after President Trump's August 6, 2020 and August 14, 2020 executive orders targeting TikTok. By doing so, the Chinese government clearly signaled that it would assert its export control powers with respect to any attempt to sever TikTok's operations from ByteDance, and that any severance would leave TikTok without access to the recommendation engine that has created a unique style and community that cannot be replicated on any other platform today. D. 30. The Act Bans TikTok and Other Byte Dance Applications. On April 24, 2024, the President signed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. 31. The Act prohibits, on pain of draconian penalties, “online mobile application store[s]" and "internet hosting services" from servicing "foreign adversary controlled application[s]" within the United States. 8 Sutter, supra n.6. 19 (Page 20 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 21 of 70 See Sec. 2(a), 2(d)(1)(A). This includes the "distribution, maintenance, or updating" of a covered application through an online marketplace. Sec. 2(a)(1). 32. Section 2(g) (3) creates two classes of "foreign adversary controlled applications" covered by the Act. 33. The first class singles out only one corporate group: "Byte Dance[] Ltd.,” “TikTok,” their “subsidiar[ies] or successor[s]" that are "controlled by a foreign adversary," or any entity "owned or controlled" by the aforementioned.9 The Act deems any application. operated by these entities a “foreign adversary controlled application," without any finding about why any particular application much less - - every application operated by these entities should be so designated. See Sec. 2(g)(3)(A). 9 “TikTok” is a platform, not a legal entity. Petitioners assume that Congress intended this provision to be a reference to TikTok Inc., and further reserve their rights to amend this Petition to include additional Tik Tok entities to the extent the government takes the position that other entities are covered by this reference. In any event, TikTok Inc. is covered as an entity “owned or controlled" by ByteDance Ltd. 20 (Page 21 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 22 of 70 34. The second class creates a discretionary process by which the President can designate other companies whose applications will also effectively be banned. Under these provisions, the President may designate an application as a "foreign adversary controlled application" if several qualifications are met: a. Covered Company. The website or application is operated directly or indirectly by a "covered company" - i.e., a company that operates a website or application that permits users to share content and has at least 1 million monthly active users. See Sec. 2(g)(2)(A). b. Controlled by a Foreign Adversary. The "covered company" operating the website or application must also be "controlled by a foreign adversary," meaning it is "headquartered in, has its principal place of business in, or is organized under the laws" of a "foreign adversary country," which currently includes China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran. Sec. 2(g)(1)(A), (g)(4); see also 10 U.S.C. § 4872(d)(2). A company may also be "controlled by a foreign adversary" if persons domiciled in any of the 21 (Page 22 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 23 of 70 (Page 23 of Total) specified countries (i.e., China, Iran, Russia, or North Korea) directly or indirectly own at least 20 percent of the company. Sec. 2(g)(1)(B). c. Not Exempt under Sec. 2(g)(2)(B). But Congress specifically exempted from the term “covered company" any "entity that operates" a website or application "whose primary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews." An entity that operates a single website or application of this nature thus cannot be a “covered company,” even if it is "controlled by a foreign adversary," poses a significant national security risk, and separately operates an application whose primary purpose is anything other than allowing users to post reviews. Sec. 2(g)(2)(B). d. Presidential Determination, Notice and Report, and Judicial Review. Finally, the President must determine that such a company presents “a significant threat to the national security of the United States." Sec. 2(g)(3)(B)(ii). Before making such a determination, the President must 22

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 24 of 70 issue public notice proposing the determination and then provide a public report to Congress describing "the specific national security concern involved," supplemented by a classified annex, and also explain "what assets would need to be divested to execute a qualified divestiture." Id. These presidential determinations are then subject to judicial review. Sec. 3(a). 35. Section 2(c) exempts a "foreign adversary controlled application[]" from the Act's prohibitions if the company that operates the application executes a “qualified divestiture." Sec. 2(c). The President must determine that such divestiture would (1) "result in the relevant covered company no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary," and (2) “preclude[] the establishment or maintenance of any operational relationship" between the application's U.S. operations and any formerly affiliated entities that are controlled by a foreign adversary, including "any cooperation with respect to the operation of a content. recommendation algorithm." Sec. 2(c), (g) (6). As noted above, the Act's broad definition of "controlled by a foreign adversary" includes, among other things, any entity organized under the laws of a "foreign adversary 23 (Page 24 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 25 of 70 country," or any entity in which a foreign person domiciled in a foreign adversary country holds at least a 20 percent ownership stake. Sec. 2(g)(1), (3)(B)(i), (4). 36. The prohibition on providing Internet hosting and mobile application store services to TikTok and other ByteDance applications. takes effect 270 days after enactment. Sec. 2(a)(2)(A). The President may extend this deadline, but only for 90 days maximum, and only if the President certifies to Congress that a path to executing a qualified divestiture has been identified, evidence of significant progress toward executing that qualified divestiture has been produced, and the relevant binding legal agreements to enable execution of the qualified divestiture are in place. 37. "Before the date on which [this] prohibition" takes effect, Petitioners are required to provide, upon request by any U.S. user of any of their applications, “all the available data related to the account of such user with respect to such application." Sec. 2(b).10 10 Because Section 2(b)'s data portability requirement applies "[b]efore" the prohibition under Section 2(a) takes effect, it cannot be "given effect" without Section 2(a) for purposes of Section 2(e)(1) of the Act, which provides that "[i]f any provision of this section or the application of this 24 (Page 25 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 26 of 70 38. Because the Act lacks any legislative findings or a statement of purpose, Petitioners and the more than 170 million American monthly users of TikTok are left to scrutinize statements from individual Members of Congress and other sources to try to discern any purported justification for this extraordinary intrusion on free speech rights. Based on these sources, it appears at least some Members of Congress sought to address "two threats" that could emerge from foreign ownership of communications platforms. 11 39. First, they may have sought to protect U.S. users' “data security."12 According to the House Committee Report for an earlier version of the Act, mobile applications, including those that are not section to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or applications of this section that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application." Because Section 2(a) violates the Constitution for the reasons set forth herein, Section 2(b) is accordingly "not operative in the absence of the unconstitutional provision.” Barr v. Am. Ass'n of Pol. Consultants, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 2335, 2352 n.9 (2020). 11 Jane Coaston, What the Tik Tok Bill Is Really About, According to a Leading Republican, N.Y. Times (Apr. 1, 2024), https://perma.cc/BL32- 786X (quoting the Act's original sponsor, Rep. Mike Gallagher). 12 Id. (Page 26 of Total) 25

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 27 of 70 controlled by foreign adversaries, can “collect vast amounts of data on Americans."13 The House Committee Report expressed a concern that such data could be used by a foreign adversary to "conduct espionage campaigns," such as by tracking specific individuals. 14 40. Second, others in Congress appear to have been motivated by a "greater concern": an alleged "propaganda threat." 15 One proponent of the Act stated that communications applications could be used to "push misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda on the American public."16 Another supporter claimed in the House Select Committee press release accompanying the bill's introduction that “[TikTok] is ... poisoning the minds of our youth every day on a massive scale."17 13 H.R. Comm. on Energy & Com., Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, H.R. Rep. No. 118-417 at 2 (2024) (hereinafter the "House Committee Report"). 14 Id. 15 Coaston, supra n.11 (quoting Rep. Gallagher). 16 House Committee Report at 2. 17 Press Release, U.S. House Select Comm. on Strategic Competition Between the U.S. and the Chinese Communist Party, Gallagher, Bipartisan Coalition Introduce Legislation to Protect Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications, Including TikTok (Mar. 5, 2024), https://perma.cc/KC5T-6AX3. (Page 27 of Total) 26

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 28 of 70 E. Congress Disregarded Alternatives to Banning TikTok, Such as the National Security Measures Petitioners Negotiated with the Executive Branch. 41. Petitioners have demonstrated a commitment to addressing both of those concerns without the need to resort to the drastic, unconstitutional step of shuttering one of the most widely used forums for speech in the United States. The 90-page draft National Security Agreement that Petitioners developed with Petitioners developed with CFIUS would, if implemented, provide U.S. TikTok users with protections more robust than those employed by any other widely used online platform in the industry. 42. The draft National Security Agreement contains several means of ensuring data security without banning TikTok. All protected U.S. user data (as defined in the National Security Agreement) would be safeguarded in the United States under a special corporate structure: TikTok U.S. Data Security (a new subsidiary of Tik Tok Inc.). A special board, with Security Directors whose appointment would be subject to the U.S. government's approval, would oversee TikTok U.S. Data Security, and in turn exclude ByteDance and all of its other subsidiaries and affiliates from such responsibilities. Further separation between the 27 (Page 28 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 29 of 70 U.S. TikTok business and Byte Dance subsidiaries and affiliates, including TikTok in the rest of the world, would be achieved by appointing a U.S.-government-approved Security Director to the board of Tik Tok Inc. Protected U.S. user data would be stored in the cloud environment of a U.S.-government-approved partner, Oracle Corporation, with access to such data managed by TikTok U.S. Data Security. 43. The draft Agreement would also protect against the concern about content manipulation and propaganda. Multiple layers of protection address concerns related to content available on the TikTok platform, including ensuring that all content moderation - both human and algorithmic ➖ would be subject to third-party verification and monitoring. The concern about content manipulation would also be addressed by securing all software code through Oracle Corporation, a U.S. trusted technology provider. The Tik Tok U.S. platform and application would be deployed through the Oracle cloud infrastructure and subject to source code review and vetting by Oracle with another U.S.-government-approved third party responsible for conducting security inspections. As part of this process, Oracle and third parties 28 (Page 29 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 30 of 70 approved by CFIUS would conduct independent inspections of the Tik Tok recommendation engine. 44. The draft Agreement also includes strict penalties for noncompliance, including a "shut-down option," giving the government the authority to suspend TikTok in the United States in response to specified acts of noncompliance. The Agreement also provides significant monetary penalties and other remedies for noncompliance. 45. Although the government has apparently abandoned the draft National Security Agreement, Petitioners have not. TikTok Inc. has begun the process of voluntarily implementing the National Security Agreement's provisions to the extent it can do so without the U.S. government's cooperation, including by incorporating and staffing the TikTok U.S. Data Security entity, and by partnering with Oracle Corporation on the migration of the U.S. platform and protected U.S. user data to Oracle's cloud environment. 46. To date, Petitioners have spent more than $2 billion to implement these measures and resolve the very concerns publicly expressed by congressional supporters of the Act all without the overbroad and unconstitutional method of an outright ban. 29 (Page 30 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 31 of 70 Grounds On Which Relief Is Sought Petitioners seek review of the constitutionality of the Act on grounds that include, without limitation, the following. Ground 1: Violation of the First Amendment 47. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom of speech." U.S. Const., amend. I. 48. By banning all online platforms and software applications offered by "TikTok" and all ByteDance subsidiaries, Congress has made a law curtailing massive amounts of protected speech. Unlike broadcast television and radio stations, which require government licenses to operate because they use the public airwaves, the government cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, dictate the ownership of newspapers, websites, online platforms, and other privately created. speech forums. 49. Indeed, in the past, Congress has recognized the importance of protecting First Amendment rights, even when regulating in the interest of national security. For example, Congress repeatedly amended IEEPA which grants the President broad authority to address national 30 (Page 31 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 32 of 70 emergencies that pose "unusual and extraordinary threat[s]" to the country to expand protections for constitutionally protected materials. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701-02. Accordingly, under IEEPA, the President does not have the authority to even indirectly regulate "personal communication" or the importation or exportation "of any information or informational materials,” id. § 1702(b)(1), (3) limitations that are necessary "to prevent the statute from running afoul of the First Amendment," Amirnazmi, 645 F.3d at 585. Yet Congress has attempted to sidestep these statutory protections aimed at protecting Americans' constitutional rights, preferring instead to simply enact a new statute that tries to avoid the constitutional limitations on the government's existing statutory Those statutory protections were evidently seen as an impediment to Congress's goal of banning TikTok, so the Act dispensed authority. with them. 50. The Act's alternative to a ban a so-called “qualified - - divestiture" is illusory to the point of being no alternative at all. As explained above, divesting TikTok Inc.'s U.S. business and completely severing it from the globally integrated platform of which it is a part is not commercially, technologically, or legally feasible. 31 (Page 32 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 33 of 70 51. The Act will therefore have the effect of shutting down TikTok in the United States, a popular forum for free speech and expression used by over 170 million Americans each month. And the Act will do so based not on any proof of a compelling interest, but on speculative and analytically flawed concerns about data security and content manipulation concerns that, even if grounded in fact, could be - addressed through far less restrictive and more narrowly tailored means. 52. Petitioners' protected speech rights. The Act burdens Tik Tok Inc.'s First Amendment rights in addition to the free speech - rights of millions of people throughout the United States in two ways. - 53. First, Petitioner TikTok Inc. has a First Amendment interest in its editorial and publishing activities on TikTok. See Hurley v. Irish- Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Bos., 515 U.S. 557, 570 (1995). TikTok “is more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment, and advertising" of others; TikTok Inc.'s "choice of material" to recommend or forbid “constitute[s] the exercise of editorial control and judgment" that is protected by the First Amendment. Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258 (1974); see also Alario v. Knudsen, (Page 33 of Total) 32

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 34 of 70 - F. Supp. 3d, 2023 WL 8270811, at *6 (D. Mont. Nov. 30, 2023) (recognizing Tik Tok Inc.'s First Amendment editorial rights). 54. As the government itself has acknowledged, “[w]hen [social media] platforms decide which third-party content to present and how to present it, they engage in expressive activity protected by the First Amendment because they are creating expressive compilations of speech." Br. for United States as Amicus Curiae at 12-13, Moody v. NetChoice LLC, No. 22-277 (U.S.), 2023 WL 8600432; see also id. at 18- 19, 25-26. 55. Second, Tik Tok Inc. is among the speakers whose expression the Act prohibits. TikTok Inc. uses the TikTok platform to create and share its own content about issues and current events, including, for example, its support for small businesses, Earth Day, and literacy and education. 18 When TikTok Inc. does so, it is engaging in core speech protected by the First Amendment. See Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 18 Tik Tok (@tiktok), TikTok, https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTL9QsTYs/ (last visited May 6, 2024); TikTok (@tiktok), TikTok, https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTL9QbSHv/ (last visited May 6, 2024); TikTok (@tiktok), TikTok, https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTL9QXE7R/ (last visited May 6, 2024). (Page 34 of Total) 33

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 35 of 70 U.S. 552, 570 (2011); NetChoice, LLC v. Att'y Gen., Fla., 34 F.4th 1196, 1210 (11th Cir. 2022), cert. granted, 144 S. Ct. 478 (2023). The Act precludes TikTok Inc. from expressing itself over that platform. 56. Even if the U.S. TikTok platform could be divested, which it cannot for the reasons explained above, TikTok Inc.'s protected speech rights would still be burdened. Because the Act appears to conclusively determine that any application operated by "TikTok" - a term that — Congress presumably meant to include Tik Tok Inc. is a foreign adversary controlled application, Sec. 2(g)(3)(A), the President appears to lack the power to determine that a TikTok Inc.-owned application is "no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary" and has no “operational relationship" with “formerly affiliated entities that are controlled by a foreign adversary," Sec. 2(g)(6)(A) & (B). The Act therefore appears to conclusively eliminate TikTok Inc.'s ability to speak through its editorial and publishing activities and through its own. account on the TikTok platform. 57. For similar reasons, the Act burdens the First Amendment rights of other ByteDance subsidiaries to reach their U.S. user audiences, (Page 35 of Total) 34

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 36 of 70 since those companies are likewise prohibited from speaking and engaging in editorial activities on other ByteDance applications. 58. The Act is subject to strict scrutiny. The Act's restrictions on Petitioners' First Amendment rights are subject to strict scrutiny for three independent reasons. 59. First, the Act represents a content- and viewpoint-based restriction on protected speech. The Act discriminates on a content basis because it exempts platforms "whose primary purpose" is to host specific types of content: "product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.” Sec. 2(g)(2)(B). The Act thus “distinguish[es] favored speech" - i.e., speech concerning travel information and business reviews "from disfavored speech" ―i.e., all other types of - speech, including particularly valuable speech like religious and political content. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 643 (1994). 60. The Act also discriminates on a viewpoint basis because it appears to have been enacted at least in part because of concerns over the viewpoints expressed in videos posted on TikTok by users of the platform. For example, the House Committee Report asserted, without supporting evidence, that Tik Tok "can be used by [foreign adversaries] to 35 (Page 36 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 37 of 70 push misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda on the American public" 19 a concern that in any event could be raised about any platform for user-generated content. See infra ¶¶82, 87. Similarly, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, who co-sponsored the Act, expressed the unsubstantiated concern that “the platform continued to show dramatic differences in content relative to other social media platforms."20 61. Second, the Act discriminates between types of speakers. As explained above, TikTok Inc. is a protected First Amendment speaker with respect to the TikTok platform. The Act facially discriminates between Tik Tok Inc. and other speakers depending on the "primary purpose” of the platforms they operate. Any application offered by Petitioners is automatically deemed a “foreign adversary controlled application,” without any exclusions or exceptions. Sec. 2(g)(3)(A). By contrast, any other company's application can be deemed a "foreign adversary controlled application” only if the company does not operate a 19 House Committee Report at 2. 20 Sapna Maheshwari, David McCabe & Annie Karni, House Passes Bill to Force Tik Tok Sale From Chinese Owner or Ban the App, N.Y. Times (Mar. 13, 2024), https://perma.cc/Z7UE-WYH6. (Page 37 of Total) 36

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 38 of 70 website or application "whose primary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews." Sec. 2(g)(2)(B). The Act thus favors speakers that do offer such websites or applications over speakers that do not. 62. Moreover, the Act singles out TikTok Inc. and other subsidiaries of ByteDance for unique disfavor in other ways. Whereas other companies with ownership in a country deemed a "foreign adversary" become subject to the Act's restrictions only upon a presidential determination that the company poses "a significant threat to the national security of the United States,” Sec. 2(g)(3)(B), ByteDance Ltd. and its subsidiaries are automatically subject to the Act's draconian restrictions by fiat, Sec. 2(g)(3)(A). The standard and process that the Act specifies for every other company likely fall short of what is required. by the First Amendment and other applicable constitutional protections, but TikTok Inc. and ByteDance have been singled out for a dramatically different, even more clearly unconstitutional regime with no public notice, no process for a presidential determination that there is a significant national security threat, no justification of that determination by a public report and submission of classified evidence to Congress, and 37 - (Page 38 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 39 of 70 no judicial review for statutory and constitutional sufficiency based on the reasons set forth in the presidential determination. The Act also draws a speaker-based distinction insofar as it specifically names Byte Dance Ltd. and TikTok, and also exempts applications with fewer than 1 million monthly users (except if those applications are operated by ByteDance Ltd. or TikTok). Sec. 2(g)(2)(A)(ii), (3)(A). 63. A statutory restriction targeting specific classes of speakers is subject to strict scrutiny. See United States v. Playboy Ent. Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 812 (2000) ("Laws designed or intended to suppress or restrict the expression of certain speakers contradict basic First Amendment principles."). And that is especially true when, as here, the Act singles out Petitioners by name for uniquely disfavored treatment and congressional statements indicate that the Act targets Petitioners in part because of concerns about the content on TikTok. Because the Act "target[s]" both "speakers and their messages for disfavored treatment,” strict scrutiny review is required. Sorrell, 564 U.S. at 565; see also Turner, 512 U.S. at 658-60. 64. Third, the Act is subject to strict scrutiny as an unlawful prior restraint. The Supreme Court has "consistently" recognized in a "long 38 (Page 39 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 40 of 70 line" of cases that government actions that “deny use of a forum in advance of actual expression" or forbid “the use of public places [for plaintiffs] to say what they wanted to say" are prior restraints. Se. Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 552-53 (1975). “[P]rior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least. tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights." Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976). The Act suppresses speech in advance of its actual expression by prohibiting all U.S. TikTok users including Petitioner Tik Tok Inc. - from communicating on the platform. See Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart, 807 F.3d 229 (7th Cir. 2015) (defendant's conduct restricting the operator of classified advertising website was a prior restraint); Org. for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 418–19 (1971) (ban on distributing leaflets a prior restraint); U.S. WeChat Users All. v. Trump, 488 F. Supp. 3d 912, 926 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (ban on communications application a prior restraint). The same is true of other Byte Dance subsidiaries and their platforms. Such restrictions “bear[] a heavy presumption against [their] constitutional validity." Se. Promotions, 420 U.S. at 558. (Page 40 of Total) 39

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 41 of 70 65. The Act fails strict scrutiny because it does not further a compelling interest. Strict scrutiny “requires the Government to prove that the restriction [1] furthers a compelling interest and [2] is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest." Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155, 171 (2015) (numerical alterations added). "If a less restrictive alternative would serve the Government's purpose, the legislature must use that alternative." Playboy, 529 U.S. at 813. The Act fails on both counts. 66. The Act does not further a compelling interest. To be sure, national security is a compelling interest, but the government must show that the Act furthers that interest. To do so, the government "must do more than simply posit the existence of the disease sought to be cured." Turner, 512 U.S. at 664 (plurality op.). Rather, it “must demonstrate that the recited harms are real, not merely conjectural, and that the regulation will in fact alleviate these harms in a direct and material way." Id. 67. Congress itself has offered nothing to suggest that the TikTok platform poses the types of risks to data security or the spread of foreign propaganda that could conceivably justify the Act. The Act is devoid of 40 (Page 41 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 42 of 70 any legislative findings, much less a demonstration of specific harms that Tik Tok supposedly poses in either respect, even though the platform was first launched in 2017. 68. The statements of congressional committees and individual Members of Congress during the hasty, closed-door legislative process preceding the Act's enactment confirm that there is at most speculation, not "evidence,” as the First Amendment requires. Instead of setting out evidence that TikTok is actually compromising Americans' data security by sharing it with the Chinese government or spreading pro-China propaganda, the House Committee Report for an earlier version of the Act relies repeatedly on speculation that Tik Tok could do those things. See, e.g., House Committee Report at 6 (TikTok could “potentially [be] allowing the CCP 'to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors") (emphasis added) (quoting Exec. Order 13,942, 85 Fed. Reg. 48637, 48637 (Aug. 6, 2020)); id. at 8 (discussing "the possibility that the [CCP] could use [TikTok] to control data collection on millions of users") (emphasis added); id. ("Tik Tok has sophisticated capabilities that create the risk that [it] can ……. suppre[ss] statements and news that the PRC deems negative") (emphasis added). Speculative risk of harm is simply 41 (Page 42 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 43 of 70 not enough when First Amendment values are at stake. These risks are even more speculative given the other ways that the Chinese government could advance these asserted interests using a variety of intelligence tools and commercial methods. See infra 85–87. 69. The conjectural nature of these concerns are further underscored by President Biden's decision to continue to maintain a Tik Tok account for his presidential campaign even after signing the Act into law. 21 Congressional supporters of the Act have also maintained campaign accounts on TikTok. 22 This continued use of TikTok by President Biden and Members of Congress undermines the claim that the platform poses an actual threat to Americans. 70. Further, even if the government could show that TikTok or another ByteDance-owned application "push[es] misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda on the American public," House 21 Monica Alba, Sahil Kapur & Scott Wong, Biden Campaign Plans to Keep Using Tik Tok Through the Election, NBC News (Apr. 24, 2024), https://perma.cc/QPQ5-RVAD. 22 Tom Norton, These US Lawmakers Voted for Tik Tok Ban But Use It Themselves, Newsweek (Apr. 17, 2024), https://perma.cc/AQ5F-N8XQ. At least one Member created a TikTok account after the Act was enacted. See https://perma.cc/L3GT-7529. (Page 43 of Total) 42

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 44 of 70 Committee Report at 2, the government would still lack a compelling interest in preventing Americans from hearing disfavored speech. generated by TikTok users and shared on the platform just because the government considers it to be foreign "propaganda." See Lamont v. Postmaster Gen. of U.S., 381 U.S. 301, 305 (1965). 71. The Act also offers no support for the idea that other applications operated by subsidiaries of ByteDance Ltd. pose national security risks. Indeed, the legislative record contains no meaningful discussion of any ByteDance-owned application other than TikTok― let alone evidence “proving” that those other applications pose such risks. Reed, 576 U.S. at 171. 72. - The Act also provides neither support nor explanation for subjecting Petitioners to statutory disqualification by legislative fiat while providing every other platform, and users of other platforms, with a process that includes a statutory standard for disqualification, notice, a reasoned decision supported by evidence, and judicial review based on those specified reasons. Only Petitioners are subjected to a regime that has no notice and no reasoned decision supported by evidence - opening the door to, among other things, post-hoc arguments that may not have 43 (Page 44 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 45 of 70 been the basis for the government action. The Supreme Court recently explained that the requirement of a "reasoned explanation" is "meant to ensure that [the government] offer[s] genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public. Accepting contrived reasons would defeat the purpose of the enterprise." Dep't of Com. v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551, 2576 (2019). Depriving Petitioners of those protections imposes a dramatically heavier burden on the free speech rights of Petitioners and TikTok users that is wholly unjustified and certainly not supported by a compelling interest. The Act also fails strict scrutiny because it is not narrowly tailored. "Even where questions of allegedly urgent national security. . . are concerned," the government must show that "the evil that would result from the [restricted speech] is both great and certain and cannot be mitigated by less intrusive measures.” CBS, Inc. v. Davis, 510 U.S. 1315, 1317 (1994). To satisfy narrow tailoring, the Act must represent the least restrictive means to further the government's asserted data security and propaganda interests, Sable Commc'ns of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126 (1989), and be neither over- nor under- 73. (Page 45 of Total) 44

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 46 of 70 inclusive, Ark. Writers' Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221, 232 (1987). The Act fails in each of these respects. 74. The Act opts for a wholesale prohibition on Petitioners offering online applications in lieu of a multitude of less restrictive measures it could have taken instead. As discussed above, Petitioners have been involved in negotiations with CFIUS since 2019 over a package of measures that would resolve the government's concerns about data security and purported propaganda related to TikTok. The terms of that negotiated package are far less restrictive than an outright ban. The negotiations have resulted in the draft National Security Agreement, which Tik Tok Inc. is already in the process of voluntarily implementing to the extent it can do so without government action. That initiative includes a multi-billion-dollar effort to create a new TikTok U.S. subsidiary devoted to protecting U.S. user data and have U.S.-based Oracle Corporation store protected U.S. TikTok user data in the United States, run the TikTok recommendation system for U.S. users, and inspect TikTok's source code for security vulnerabilities. 75. If executed by the government, the National Security Agreement would also give CFIUS a "shut-down option" to suspend 45 (Page 46 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 47 of 70 Tik Tok in the United States in response to specified acts of noncompliance. The government has never meaningfully explained why the National Security Agreement (a far less restrictive alternative to an outright, total ban) is insufficient to address its stated concerns about data security and propaganda. 76. Even if the government's dissatisfaction with the draft. National Security Agreement were valid (despite the government never explaining why the agreement that the government itself negotiated is unsatisfactory), the CFIUS process in in which Petitioners have participated in good faith is geared toward finding any number of other less restrictive alternatives to an outright, total ban. The CFIUS member agencies could return to working with Petitioners to craft a solution that is tailored to meet the government's concerns and that is commercially, technologically, and legally feasible. Yet the government has not explained why the CFIUS process is not a viable alternative. 77. There are also a wide range of other less restrictive measures that Congress could have enacted. While many of these measures are themselves unjustified as applied to Petitioners, they nevertheless. illustrate that the Act does not select the least restrictive means to 46 (Page 47 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 48 of 70 further the national security goals that appear to have motivated it. For example, Congress could have addressed some members' stated concern about Tik Tok allegedly "track[ing] the locations of Federal employees and contractors" 23 by expanding the existing ban on government-owned devices to cover personal devices of federal employees and contractors. Or Congress could have enacted legislation to regulate TikTok's access to measures the Department of certain features on users' devices Homeland Security identified in 2020 as potential mitigations to "reduce the national security risks associated with" TikTok.24 78. Of course, Congress could also have decided not to single out a single speech platform (TikTok) and company (ByteDance Ltd.), and instead pursued any number of industry-wide regulations aimed at addressing the industry-wide issues of data security and content integrity. Congress could have enacted a data protection law governing transfers of Americans' sensitive data to foreign countries, similar to the 23 House Committee Report at 6. 24 Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience Note, Appendix B: Department of Homeland Security Tik Tok and WeChat Risk Assessment 4 (Sept. 2, 2020). 47 (Page 48 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 49 of 70 strategy President Biden is currently pursuing through executive - the order. 25 Indeed, Congress did enact such a data-transfer law similarly named "Protecting Americans' Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024" as the very next division of the legislation that contains the Act. Yet it chose to prohibit only “data broker[s]” from “mak[ing] available personally identifiable sensitive data of a United States. individual to any foreign adversary country or ... any entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary." H.R. 815, div. I, § 2(a), 118th Cong., Pub. L. No. 118-50 (Apr. 24, 2024). 79. There are also models for industry-wide regulation that Congress could have followed from other jurisdictions. For example, the European Union's Digital Services Act requires certain platforms to make disclosures about their content-moderation policies and to provide regulators and researchers with access to their data so those researchers can assess if the platforms are systemically promoting or suppressing 25 See Exec. Order 14, 117, 89 Fed. Reg. 15421 (Mar. 1, 2024). 48 (Page 49 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 50 of 70 content with particular viewpoints. 26 Congress pursued none of these alternatives. 80. Congress did not even provide Petitioners with the process and fact-finding protections that the Act extends to all other companies -protections which themselves likely fall short of what the Constitution mandates. Other companies receive prior notice, followed by a presidential determination of (and public report on) the national security threat posed by the targeted application, and the submission to Congress. of classified evidence supporting that determination, Sec. 2(g)(3)(B), which then is subject to judicial review based on the actual reasons for the decision, not post hoc rationalizations. 81. Because Congress failed to try any of these less restrictive measures, or at a minimum to explain why these alternatives would not address the government's apparent concerns, the Act is not narrowly tailored. 82. The Act independently fails strict scrutiny because it is both under- and over-inclusive. The Act is under-inclusive because it 26 EU Reg. 2022/2065 arts. 15, 40(4), 42(2). 49 (Page 50 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 51 of 70 ignores the many ways in which other companies. - both foreign and domestic can pose the same risks to data security and promotion of misinformation supposedly posed by Petitioners. The government "cannot claim" that banning some types of foreign owned applications is "necessary" to prevent espionage and propaganda “while at the same time" allowing other types of platforms and applications that may "create the same problem.” Reed, 576 U.S. at 172. Put differently, the Act's “[u]nderinclusiveness raises serious doubts about whether the government is in fact pursuing the interest it invokes, rather than disfavoring a particular speaker or viewpoint.” Brown v. Ent. Merchants Ass'n, 564 U.S. 786, 802 (2011). 83. Most glaringly, the Act applies only to Petitioners and certain other platforms that allow users to generate and view "text, images, videos, real-time communications, or similar content.” Sec. 2(g)(2)(A). The Act's coverage is thus triggered not by whether an application. collects users' data, but whether it shows them “content." Accordingly, there is no necessary relationship between the Act's scope and Congress's apparent concern with risks to Americans' data security, which could (Page 51 of Total) 50

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 52 of 70 equally be posed by personal finance, navigation, fitness, or many other types of applications. 84. The Act also singles out Petitioners by exempting all other companies that operate any website or application "whose primary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews." Sec. 2(g)(2)(B). But the Act does not explain why such applications, when (i) “foreign adversary controlled” under the Act's broad definition; and (ii) determined by the President to be a significant national security threat, could not likewise be used to collect data from Americans such as Americans' location information - or to spread misinformation. Nor does the Act explain why an entire company presents no threat simply because it operates a single website or application the “primary purpose” of which is posting “product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews." Sec. 2(g)(2)(B). The Act's differential treatment of this favored category of websites and applications also disregards the fact that there is voluminous content on Tik Tok containing product reviews, business reviews, and travel information and reviews. Yet TikTok and all ByteDance applications are ineligible for this exclusion. 51 (Page 52 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 53 of 70 85. More broadly, the Act ignores the reality that much of the data collected by Tik Tok is no different in kind from the data routinely collected by other applications and sources in today's online world, including by American companies like Google, Snap, and Meta. The Act also ignores that foreign countries, including China, can obtain such information on Americans in other ways such as through open-source research and hacking operations. 86. Likewise, the House Committee Report on an earlier version of the Act speculates that allowing source code development in China "potentially exposes U.S. users to malicious code, backdoor vulnerabilities, surreptitious surveillance, and other problematic activities tied to source code development."27 But those supposed risks arise for each of the many American companies that employ individuals in China to develop code. The Act, however, does not seek to regulate, much less prohibit, all online applications offered by companies that have offices in China or that otherwise employ Chinese nationals as software developers. 28 27 House Committee Report at 5. 28 See, e.g., Karen Freifeld & Jonathan Stempel, Former Google Engineer 52 (Page 53 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 54 of 70 87. Nor does the Act seek to cut off numerous other ways that Americans could be exposed to foreign propaganda. For instance, the Act leaves foreign nationals (and even adversarial governments themselves) free to operate cable television networks in the United States, spread propaganda through accounts on other online platforms that enable the sharing of user-generated content, or distribute copies of state-run newspapers physically or over the Internet (including by software applications) in the United States. 29 Indicted for Stealing AI Secrets to Aid Chinese Companies, Reuters (Mar. 6, 2024), https://perma.cc/6LYE-64J6. 29 The U.S. government has recognized that foreign government. propaganda is an industry-wide challenge for online platforms. See, e.g., Nat'l Intel. Council, Declassified Intelligence Community Assessment, Foreign Threats to the 2020 US Federal Elections (Mar. 10, 2021), https://perma.cc/VD3Y-VXSB. YouTube, for example, added disclaimers to certain channels that were reportedly being used to spread disinformation on behalf of the Russian government. Paresh Dave & Christopher Bing, Russian Disinformation on YouTube Draws Ads, Lacks Warning Labels - Researchers, Reuters (June 7, 2019), https://perma.cc/2BEJ-VKGW. Like others in the industry, TikTok publishes transparency reports on attempts by users to use the platform for government propaganda purposes. See TikTok, Countering Influence Operations (last visited May 6, 2024), https://perma.cc/AB39-S8FJ. 53 (Page 54 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 55 of 70 88. The Act is also over-inclusive because it applies to other Byte Dance Ltd.-owned applications that Congress has not shown and could not possibly prove pose the risks the Act apparently seeks to address. - 89. At a minimum, the Act fails intermediate scrutiny. Even if strict scrutiny did not apply, the Act would still fail intermediate scrutiny as a time, place, and manner restriction: the Act prohibits speech activity on TikTok at all times, in all places, and in all manners anywhere across the United States. To pass intermediate scrutiny, a law must be "narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.” McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464, 486 (2014). This means that it must not "burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests," Turner, 512 U.S. at 661-62, and "leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information," Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984). 90. For many of the same reasons the Act cannot satisfy strict scrutiny, it also cannot satisfy intermediate scrutiny: (Page 55 of Total) 54

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 56 of 70 91. As discussed supra ¶¶67-69, the government has failed to establish that its apparent data security and propaganda concerns with Tik Tok are non-speculative. And as discussed supra ¶¶ 73-81, the Act. burdens substantially more speech than necessary because there are many less restrictive alternatives Congress could have adopted to address any legitimate concerns. The Act also fails intermediate scrutiny because it “effectively prevents” TikTok Inc. “from reaching [its] intended audience" and thus "fails to leave open ample alternative means of communication." Edwards v. City of Coeur d'Alene, 262 F.3d 856, 866 (9th Cir. 2001). 92. Regardless of the level of scrutiny, the Act violates the First Amendment for two additional reasons. 93. The Act forecloses an entire medium of expression. First, by banning TikTok in the United States, the Act "foreclose[s] an entire medium of expression." City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 56 (1994). A "long line of Supreme Court cases indicates that such laws are almost never reasonable." Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach, 621 F.3d 1051, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2010). (Page 56 of Total) 55

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 57 of 70 94. The Act is constitutionally overbroad. Second, the Act is facially overbroad. A law is "overbroad if a substantial number of its. applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep." United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 473 (2010) (citation omitted). Here, for example, the government has never contended that all or even most of the content on TikTok (or any other Byte Dance-owned application) represents misinformation, or propaganda. Yet the Act shuts down all speech on ByteDance-owned applications at all times, in all places, and in all manners. That is textbook overbreadth. See, e.g., Bd. of Airport Comm'rs v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U.S. 569, 574–75 (1987). disinformation, Ground 2: Unconstitutional Bill of Attainder 95. The Act is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Article I of the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from passing any bill of attainder. U.S. Const. art. I § 9, cl. 3 ("No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."). A bill of attainder is "legislative punishment, of any form or severity, of specifically designated persons or groups." United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 447 (1965). The protection against bills of attainder is “an implementation of 56 (Page 57 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 58 of 70 the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function, or more simply trial by legislature." Id. at 442. - 97. By singling out Petitioners for legislative punishment, the Act is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. 98. The Act inflicts "pains and penalties" that historically have been associated with bills of attainder. See Nixon v. Adm'r of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 474 (1977). Historically, common "pains and penalties" included "punitive confiscation of property by the sovereign” and “a legislative enactment barring designated individuals or groups from participation in specified employments or vocations," among others. Id. As described above, the Act confiscates Petitioners' U.S. businesses by forcing ByteDance to shutter them within 270 days or sell on terms that are not commercially, technologically, or legally feasible. See supra ¶¶26-29. For the same reason, the Act bars Petitioners from operating in their chosen line of business. 99. "[V]iewed in terms of the type and severity of burdens imposed" on Petitioners, the Act's treatment of Petitioners cannot "reasonably ... be said to further nonpunitive legislative purposes." Nixon, 433 U.S. at 475–76. The Act transforms Petitioners into a “vilified 57 (Page 58 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 59 of 70 class" by explicitly prohibiting their current and future operations in the United States, without qualification or limitation, but does not extend the same treatment to other similarly situated companies. Foretich v. United States, 351 F.3d 1198, 1224 (D.C. Cir. 2003). 100. Moreover, in light of the less restrictive alternatives discussed above, there is no justification for automatically barring Petitioners' current and future operations in the United States (or those of its subsidiaries or successors) in perpetuity without providing them a meaningful opportunity to take corrective action. See Kaspersky Lab, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 909 F.3d 446, 456 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Indeed, the Act imposes this punishment uniquely on Petitioners without the process, and presidential determination of a significant national security threat, that Congress has afforded to everyone else. Expressly singling out Petitioners for these punitive burdens while at the same time adopting a statutory standard and decision-making process applicable to every other entity makes clear that Petitioners are subjected to a prohibited legislatively imposed punishment. 101. Moreover, while Petitioners can avoid the Act's prohibitions only via a wholesale divestment, all other companies 58 even those with (Page 59 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 60 of 70 Chinese ownership and determined by the President to present a "significant threat" to U.S. national security ― can avoid prohibition simply by operating a website or an application "whose primary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews." Sec. 2(g)(2)(b). 102. Indeed, any other "adversary-controlled" company that operates an application exactly like TikTok, but also operates a website the primary purpose of which is to post product reviews, is left untouched, leaving a ready path for any company but those affiliated with Petitioners to circumvent the Act's prohibitions altogether. For all practical purposes, then, the Act applies to just one corporate group is a "Tik Tok bill," as congressional leaders have described it.30 - it 103. For all of these reasons, the Act constitutes an unconstitutional bill of attainder. 30 Rachel Dobkin, Mike Johnson's Letter Sparks New Flood of Republican Backlash, Newsweek (Apr. 17, 2024), https://perma.cc/Z5HD-7UVU (quoting letter from Speaker Johnson referencing the “TikTok_bill”); Senator Chuck Schumer, Majority Leader, to Colleagues (Apr. 5, 2024), https://perma.cc/J7Q4-9PGJ (referencing “TikTok legislation”). 59 (Page 60 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 61 of 70 Ground 3: Violation of Equal Protection 104. The Act also violates Petitioners' rights under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because it singles Petitioners out for adverse treatment without any reason for doing so. 105. First, the Act deems any application offered by Petitioners to be a “foreign adversary controlled application" without notice or a presidential determination. Sec. 2(g)(3)(A). By contrast, applications offered by other companies "controlled by a foreign adversary" are deemed to be "foreign adversary controlled applications" only after notice. and a presidential determination that those companies present "significant threat[s]" to U.S. national security, a determination that must be supported by evidence submitted to Congress. Sec. 2(g)(2)(B); see supra 34(d). 106. That distinction imposes a dramatically heavier burden on Petitioners' free speech rights without any justification. The Act precludes the government from burdening the speech rights of any speakers other than Petitioners unless and until the President issues a public report on the specific national security concerns animating the 60 (Page 61 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 62 of 70 President's decision, provides support for that decision, and describes the assets requiring divestiture. Those protections ensure that the President must, at the very least, provide a detailed national security justification for his or her actions before burdening other speakers' speech a justification that then will provide the basis for judicial review. The Act imposes none of those requirements as a precondition for burdening Petitioners' speech it levies that burden by unexplained legislative fiat. — 107. Second, the Act denies Petitioners the exemption available to any other company that is purportedly “controlled by a foreign adversary." As noted, any application Petitioners offer is ipso facto deemed a "foreign adversary controlled application." By contrast, other companies "controlled by a foreign adversary" are exempt from the Act's definition of a "covered company," and thus from the Act's requirements, so long as they offer at least one application with the "primary purpose" of “allow[ing] users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews." Sec. 2(g)(2)(B). 108. There is no conceivable reason for treating Petitioners differently than all other similarly situated companies. Even if Congress 61 (Page 62 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 63 of 70 had valid interests in protecting U.S. users' data and controlling what content may be disseminated through global platforms that would be advanced through the Act, there is no reason why those concerns would support a ban on Petitioners' platforms without corresponding bans on other platforms. Nor is there any rational reason why Congress would ban Petitioners' platforms while allowing any other company "controlled by a foreign adversary" - regardless of the national security threat posed by that company to sidestep the Act's reach by simply offering an - application that “allows users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews," but changing nothing else about the company's operations, ownership structure, or other applications. 109. By treating Petitioners differently from others similarly situated, the Act denies Petitioners the equal protection of the law. Ground 4: Unconstitutional Taking 110. The Act effects an unlawful taking of private property without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. 111. The Takings Clause provides that “private property” shall not be "taken for public use, without just compensation." U.S. Const. amend. V, cl. 5. The Act does just that by shutting down ByteDance's 62 (Page 63 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 64 of 70 U.S. businesses or, to the extent any qualified divestiture alternative is even feasible (it is not), compelling ByteDance to sell those businesses. under fire-sale circumstances that guarantee inadequate compensation. 112. Petitioners have substantial property interests in, and associated with, their and their affiliates' U.S. operations. These include not only ByteDance Ltd.'s interest in TikTok Inc. and other U.S. businesses, but also the platforms and applications themselves. See Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States, 338 U.S. 1, 11–13 (1949) (Takings Clause also protects losses to going-concern value of business). 113. If the Act's prohibitions take effect, they will deprive Petitioners of property protected by the Takings Clause. Absent a qualified divestiture, the Act will shutter Petitioners' businesses in the United States. And even if a qualified divestiture were feasible (it is not), any sale could be, at best, completed only at an enormous discount to the U.S. businesses' current market value, given the forced sale conditions. See BFP v. Resol. Tr. Corp., 511 U.S. 531, 537 (1994) (“[M]arket value, as it is commonly understood, has no applicability in the forced-sale context; indeed, it is the very antithesis of forced-sale value."). (Page 64 of Total) 63

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 65 of 70 114. Because the Act compels ByteDance "to relinquish specific, identifiable property" or forfeit "all economically beneficial uses," the Act effects a per se taking. Horne v. Dep't of Agric., 576 U.S. 350, 364-65 (2015); Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1019 (1992). 115. Alternatively, the Act inflicts a regulatory taking. Even when a law does not compel the physical invasion of property or deprive the property of all economically viable use, it still effects a taking "if [it] goes too far." Penn. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415 (1922). In determining when a law "goes too far," courts have typically looked to "several factors" identified in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978), namely, (a) “[t]he economic impact of the regulation”; (b) “the extent to which the regulation has interfered with reasonable investment-backed expectations"; and (c) "the character of the governmental action." The Act inflicts a regulatory taking under each of these three factors. 116. The Act does not compensate Petitioners (let alone provide just compensation) for the dispossession of their U.S. businesses. See United States v. Miller, 317 U.S. 369, 373 (1943). Prospective injunctive (Page 65 of Total) 64

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 66 of 70 relief is accordingly warranted. See, e.g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 (1952). Requested Relief relief: Petitioners respectfully request that this Court grant the following A. Issue a declaratory judgment that the Act violates the U.S. Constitution; B. Issue an order enjoining the Attorney General from enforcing the Act; C. Enter judgment in favor of Petitioners; and D. Grant any further relief that may be appropriate. (Page 66 of Total) 65

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 67 of 70 DATED: May 7, 2024 Andrew J. Pincus Avi M. Kupfer MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: 202-263-3220 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Respectfully submitted, /s/ Alexander A. Berengaut Alexander A. Berengaut David M. Zionts Megan A. Crowley COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] John E. Hall Anders Linderot COVINGTON & BURLING LLP The New York Times Building 620 Eighth Avenue New York, New York 10018 Telephone: (212) 841-1000 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners (Page 67 of Total) 66

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 68 of 70 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT TIKTOK INC., and BYTEDANCE LTD., V. ) Petitioners, No. 24-1113 MERRICK B. GARLAND, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Petitioners state as follows: ByteDance Ltd. is a privately held corporation incorporated in the Cayman Islands. ByteDance Ltd. subsidiaries provide a suite of more than a dozen products and services that allow people to connect with, create, and consume content on the Internet. ByteDance Ltd. has no (Page 68 of Total) 1

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 69 of 70 parent company, and no publicly traded company owns 10% or more of Byte Dance Ltd.'s stock. Tik Tok Inc. is a California-incorporated company that provides the TikTok platform in the United States. TikTok Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of TikTok LLC, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of TikTok Ltd. TikTok Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of ByteDance Ltd. TikTok Inc. has no other parent company, and no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. (Page 69 of Total) 2 /s/Alexander A. Berengaut Alexander A. Berengaut Counsel for Petitioners

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 70 of 70 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 7th day of May, I caused copies of the foregoing Petition for Review and Corporate Disclosure Statement to be served upon the following recipients. By certified mail, postage prepaid: Merrick B. Garland Attorney General of the United States U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 By hand delivery: Matthew M. Graves United States Attorney 601 D Street, NW Washington, DC 20579 /s/ Alexander A. Berengaut Alexander A. Berengaut Counsel for Petitioners (Page 70 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 1 of 7 (Page 71 of Total) EXHIBIT A

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 2 of 7 (Page 72 of Total) H. R. 815-61 Fusion Development Strategy programs of the People's Republic of China, including the following: (1) A brief summary of each such identified field and its relevance to the military power and national security of the People's Republic of China. (2) The implications for the national security of the United States as a result of the leadership or dominance by the People's Republic of China in each such identified field and associated supply chains. (3) The identification of at least 10 entities domiciled in, controlled by, or directed by the People's Republic of China (including any subsidiaries of such entity), involved in each such identified field, and an assessment of, with respect to each such entity, the following: (A) Whether the entity has procured components from any known United States suppliers. (B) Whether any United States technology imported by the entity is controlled under United States regulations. (C) Whether United States capital is invested in the entity, either through known direct investment or passive investment flows. (D) Whether the entity has any connection to the Peo- ple's Liberation Army, the Military-Civil Fusion program of the People's Republic of China, or any other state-spon- sored initiatives of the People's Republic of China to sup- port the development of national champions. (c) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DEFINED.-In this section, the term "appropriate congressional committees" means- (1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Rep- resentatives; (2) the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; (3) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate; and (4) the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate. DIVISION H-PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARY CON- TROLLED APPLICATIONS ACT SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE. This division may be cited as the "Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act”. SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF FOREIGN APPLICATIONS. ADVERSARY CONTROLLED (a) IN GENERAL.— (1) PROHIBITION OF FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS.-It shall be unlawful for an entity to distribute, maintain, or update (or enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of) a foreign adversary controlled application by carrying out, within the land or maritime borders of the United States, any of the following:

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 3 of 7 (Page 73 of Total) H. R. 815-62 (A) Providing services to distribute, maintain, or update such foreign adversary controlled application (including any source code of such application) by means of a marketplace (including an online mobile application store) through which users within the land or maritime borders of the United States may access, maintain, or update such application. (B) Providing internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign adversary controlled application for users within the land or maritime borders of the United States. (2) APPLICABILITY.-Subject to paragraph (3), this sub- section shall apply― (A) in the case of an application that satisfies the definition of a foreign adversary controlled application pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(A), beginning on the date that is 270 days after the date of the enactment of this division; and (B) in the case of an application that satisfies the definition of a foreign adversary controlled application pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(B), beginning on the date that is 270 days after the date of the relevant determination of the President under such subsection. (3) EXTENSION. With respect to a foreign adversary con- trolled application, the President may grant a 1-time extension of not more than 90 days with respect to the date on which this subsection would otherwise apply to such application pursuant to paragraph (2), if the President certifies to Congress that- (A) a path to executing a qualified divestiture has been identified with respect to such application; (B) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture has been produced with respect to such application; and (C) there are in place the relevant binding legal agree- ments to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension. (b) DATA AND INFORMATION PORTABILITY TO ALTERNATIVE APPLICATIONS.-Before the date on which a prohibition under sub- section (a) applies to a foreign adversary controlled application, the entity that owns or controls such application shall provide, upon request by a user of such application within the land or maritime borders of United States, to such user all the available data related to the account of such user with respect to such application. Such data shall be provided in a machine readable format and shall include any data maintained by such application with respect to the account of such user, including content (including posts, photos, and videos) and all other account information. (c) EXEMPTIONS.— (1) EXEMPTIONS FOR QUALIFIED DIVESTITURES.-Subsection (a)— (A) does not apply to a foreign adversary controlled application with respect to which a qualified divestiture is executed before the date on which a prohibition under subsection (a) would begin to apply to such application; and

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 4 of 7 (Page 74 of Total) H. R. 815-63 (B) shall cease to apply in the case of a foreign adversary controlled application with respect to which a qualified divestiture is executed after the date on which a prohibition under subsection (a) applies to such applica- tion. (2) EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN NECESSARY SERVICES.-Sub- sections (a) and (b) do not apply to services provided with respect to a foreign adversary controlled application that are necessary for an entity to attain compliance with such sub- sections. (d) ENFORCEMENT.— (1) CIVIL PENALTIES.― (A) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION VIO- LATIONS. An entity that violates subsection (a) shall be subject to pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed the amount that results from multiplying $5,000 by the number of users within the land or maritime borders of the United States determined to have accessed, maintained, or updated a foreign adversary controlled application as a result of such violation. (B) DATA AND INFORMATION VIOLATIONS.-An entity that violates subsection (b) shall be subject to pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed the amount that results from multiplying $500 by the number of users within the land or maritime borders of the United States affected by such violation. (2) ACTIONS BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.-The Attorney Gen- eral- (A) shall conduct investigations related to potential violations of subsection (a) or (b), and, if such an investiga- tion results in a determination that a violation has occurred, the Attorney General shall pursue enforcement under paragraph (1); and (B) may bring an action in an appropriate district court of the United States for appropriate relief, including civil penalties under paragraph (1) or declaratory and injunctive relief. (e) SEVERABILITY.― (1) IN GENERAL.-If any provision of this section or the application of this section to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or applications of this section that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. (2) SUBSEQUENT DETERMINATIONS.-If the application of any provision of this section is held invalid with respect to a foreign adversary controlled application that satisfies the definition of such term pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(A), such invalidity shall not affect or preclude the application of the same provision of this section to such foreign adversary con- trolled application by means of a subsequent determination pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(B). (f) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.-Nothing in this division may be construed― (1) to authorize the Attorney General to pursue enforce- ment, under this section, other than enforcement of subsection (a) or (b);

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 5 of 7 (Page 75 of Total) H. R. 815-64 (2) to authorize the Attorney General to pursue enforce- ment, under this section, against an individual user of a foreign adversary controlled application; or (3) except as expressly provided herein, to alter or affect any other authority provided by or established under another provision of Federal law. (g) DEFINITIONS.-In this section: (1) CONTROLLED BY A FOREIGN ADVERSARY.-The term "con- trolled by a foreign adversary" means, with respect to a covered company or other entity, that such company or other entity is- (A) a foreign person that is domiciled in, is headquartered in, has its principal place of business in, or is organized under the laws of a foreign adversary country; (B) an entity with respect to which a foreign person or combination of foreign persons described in subpara- graph (A) directly or indirectly own at least a 20 percent stake; or (C) a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity described in subparagraph (A) or (B). (2) COVERED COMPANY.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The term "covered company" means an entity that operates, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), a website, desktop application, mobile application, or aug- mented or immersive technology application that— (i) permits a user to create an account or profile to generate, share, and view text, images, videos, real- time communications, or similar content; (ii) has more than 1,000,000 monthly active users with respect to at least 2 of the 3 months preceding the date on which a relevant determination of the President is made pursuant to paragraph (3)(B); (iii) enables 1 or more users to generate or dis- tribute content that can be viewed by other users of the website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application; and (iv) enables 1 or more users to view content gen- erated by other users of the website, desktop applica- tion, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application. (B) EXCLUSION.—The term “covered company” does not include an entity that operates a website, desktop applica- tion, mobile application, or augmented or immersive tech- nology application whose primary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews. a (3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION.―The term "foreign adversary controlled application" means website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by— (A) any of (i) ByteDance, Ltd.;

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 6 of 7 (Page 76 of Total) (ii) TikTok; H. R. 815-65 (iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or (iv) an entity owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii); or (B) a covered company that- (i) is controlled by a foreign adversary; and (ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of (I) a public notice proposing such determina- tion; and (II) a public report to Congress, submitted not less than 30 days before such determination, describing the specific national security concern involved and containing a classified annex and a description of what assets would need to be divested to execute a qualified divestiture. (4) FOREIGN ADVERSARY COUNTRY.-The term “foreign adversary country" means a country specified in section 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code. (5) INTERNET HOSTING SERVICE.―The term "internet hosting service" means a service through which storage and computing resources are provided to an individual or organiza- tion for the accommodation and maintenance of 1 or more websites or online services, and which may include file hosting, domain name server hosting, cloud hosting, and virtual private server hosting. (6) QUALIFIED DIVESTITURE.—The term "qualified divesti- ture" means a divestiture or similar transaction that- (A) the President determines, through an interagency process, would result in the relevant foreign adversary controlled application no longer being controlled by a for- eign adversary; and (B) the President determines, through an interagency process, precludes the establishment or maintenance of any operational relationship between the United States operations of the relevant foreign adversary controlled application and any formerly affiliated entities that are controlled by a foreign adversary, including any cooperation with respect to the operation of a content recommendation algorithm or an agreement with respect to data sharing. (7) SOURCE CODE.-The term "source code" means the com- bination of text and other characters comprising the content, both viewable and nonviewable, of a software application, including any publishing language, programming language, pro- tocol, or functional content, as well as any successor languages or protocols. (8) UNITED STATES.-The term "United States" includes the territories of the United States. SEC. 3. JUDICIAL REVIEW. (a) RIGHT OF ACTION.-A petition for review challenging this division or any action, finding, or determination under this division

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 7 of 7 (Page 77 of Total) H. R. 815-66 may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. (b) EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.-The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to this division or any action, finding, or determination under this division. (c) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.-A challenge may only be brought― (1) in the case of a challenge to this division, not later than 165 days after the date of the enactment of this division; and (2) in the case of a challenge to any action, finding, or determination under this division, not later than 90 days after the date of such action, finding, or determination. DIVISION I-PROTECTING AMERICANS' DATA FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES ACT OF 2024 SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE. This division may be cited as the "Protecting Americans' Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024". SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE SENSITIVE DATA OF UNITED STATES INDIVIDUALS TO FOR- EIGN ADVERSARIES. (a) PROHIBITION.-It shall be unlawful for a data broker to sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, provide access to, or otherwise make available personally identifiable sensitive data of a United States individual to- (1) any foreign adversary country; or (2) any entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary. (b) ENFORCEMENT BY FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.― (1) UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES.-A violation of this section shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or a deceptive act or practice under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)). (2) POWERS OF COMMISSION.― (A) IN GENERAL.-The Commission shall enforce this section in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.Č. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this section. (B) PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES.-Any person who vio- lates this section shall be subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act. (3) AUTHORITY PRESERVED.-Nothing in this section may be construed to limit the authority of the Commission under any other provision of law. (c) DEFINITIONS.-In this section: (1) COMMISSION.-The term "Commission" means the Fed- eral Trade Commission.