The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Friday morning over whether the social media platform TikTok should be required to divest from its Chinese-owned parent company or be banned in the U.S., in a highly watched case that pits concerns over national security against free speech protections. Justices both conservative and liberal appear skeptical of the social media app's arguments.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted Friday that the case appears to be the first case to be heard by the court centered directly on the ownership of a platform or app, rather than speech.

The liberal justice also questioned whether the court might consider the divestiture requirement under the law as a data control case, not properly a free-speech issue, as TikTok's legal team has sought to frame it. Weighing the case as a data control case would trigger a lower level of scrutiny— a point that Francisco also acknowledged.

That consideration could undermine TikTok’s fundamental argument at hand, which is that the government failed to consider less-restrictive alternatives before jumping to an outright ban.

"I don't think any of our cases have ever suggested that we have to use the least restrictive means under intermediate scrutiny," Sotomayor said. 

Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, told justices in oral arguments Friday that the U.S. government has "no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda," and that he believes the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution.

Francisco told Chief Justice John Roberts that he believes the court should grant TikTok First Amendment protections because it is operating as a U.S.-incorporated subsidiary. 

The TikTok attorney was also grilled over the Chinese government’s control over the app, and ByteDance’s control over the algorithm that shows certain content to users.

Asked by Justice Neil Gorsuch whether some parts of the recommendation engine are under Chinese control, Francisco said no.
"What it means is that there are lots of parts of the source code that are embodied in intellectual property, that are owned by the Chinese government" and which a sale or divestiture would restrict, he said.  "It doesn't alter the fact that this is, being operated in the United States by TikTok incorporated."

Unless justices intervene, or TikTok’s owners agree to sell, the app will be barred from operating in the U.S. by Jan. 19.
Oral arguments center on the level of First Amendment protections that should be granted to TikTok and its foreign owner, ByteDance.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has grappled with whether or not full First Amendment protections should be extended to foreign speakers. In previous cases, they have ruled that speech by a foreign government or individuals is not entitled to the full protections. 

The Biden administration, for its part, will argue that the law focuses solely on the company’s control of the app, which attorneys for the administration argue could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans rather than its content. 

Lawyers for the administration will also argue that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech, much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content, and therefore fails to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment. 

The court’s decision could have major ramifications for the roughly 170 million Americans who use the app. 

Justices agreed in December to hold the expedited hearing and will have just nine days to issue a ruling before the ban takes place on Jan. 19. 

Oral arguments began shortly after 10 a.m. Stay here for live updates as the oral arguments unfold.

The future of TikTok is at stake and could be decided soon as the U.S. Supreme Court considers free speech arguments over a potential nationwide ban. If its China-based owner, ByteDance, doesn’t relinquish control of the app, TikTok might no longer […]

The post TikTok’s future hangs in the balance as US Supreme Court weighs free speech arguments over ban first appeared on Tech Startups.

Historian Roel Konijnendijk reviews ancient warfare scenes and battle tactics in movies and TV shows.

He looks at the naval battle and gladiator fights depicted in "Gladiator II," starring Paul Mescal, Pedro Pascal, and Denzel Washington. He talks about how armies would signal attacks in season two of "House of the Dragon," starring Matt Smith, Emma D'Arcy, and Olivia Cooke. He breaks down the many siege warfare methods in "Prince of Persia," starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Ben Kingsley, and Gemma Arterton; and season two of "The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power." He discusses the purposes behind cavalry charges in "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King," starring Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, and Viggo Mortensen; and "Kingdom of Heaven," starring Orlando Bloom, Liam Neeson, and Edward Norton. He explains the ancient Greek shock tactics in "300: Rise of an Empire," starring Eva Green and Lena Headey. He points out how line formations operate in "Rome," starring Tobias Menzies and Kerry Condon. Finally, he examines the strengths and weaknesses of Kublai Khan's army in "Marco Polo," starring Benedict Wong.

Roel Konijnendijk is a historian of ancient warfare at Lincoln College, University of Oxford. He specializes in classical Greek warfare.

You can find Roel on social media here on Bluesky or X (formerly Twitter).

President-elect Donald Trump’s winter White House is hosting a parade of House Republicans this weekend, all of whom are hoping that getting the incoming commander in chief’s ear will help an ideologically diverse group of lawmakers get on the same page on a massive conservative policy overhaul.

It is also likely to be another test of Trump’s power over Congressional Republicans and whether his influence will be enough to overcome longstanding fractures on fiscal policy.

"The president is hosting multiple factions, right? It’s not just any one. The goal is to level-set the understanding of what we can accomplish," one GOP lawmaker told Fox News Digital. "Nobody disagrees, in broad brushstrokes, on the large goals. But there are very specific issues that are going to create concerns for folks. And we’ve got to work through them."

On Friday, Trump is hosting members of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, several of whom voted against a government funding bill the president-elect explicitly backed last month.

JOHNSON BLASTS DEM ACCUSATIONS HE VOWED TO END OBAMACARE AS 'DISHONEST'

He is also due to meet with senior Republicans and House committee chairs, as well as GOP lawmakers from blue states.

It comes amid disagreements between Congressional Republicans on the path forward for the budget reconciliation process. The mechanism generally has allowed one party in control of the government to advance their own agenda through one massive bill.

More specifically, reconciliation lowers the Senate’s threshold for passage from 60 votes to just a simple majority, putting it on par with the House of Representatives.

REPUBLICANS GIVE DETAILS FROM CLOSED-DOOR MEETINGS WITH DOGE

Reconciliation only allows for budgetary and other fiscal measures to be passed. However, both parties have traditionally tried to stretch those parameters to advance as much of their agendas as possible. GOP leaders have signaled they want to use reconciliation to deal with border security, energy policy, defense and to extend Trump’s 2017 tax cuts.

However, there is broad disagreement on whether to split those goals in half. Proponents of the two-track approach believe that passing an initial bill on border and energy policies will allow Republicans to score an early victory there while taking more time on tax policy.

However, those who advocate for just one bill argue that two reconciliation bills have not been passed in decades, given the heavy political capital needed for even one. They’ve warned that the strategy could put Trump’s tax cuts in danger of expiring.

The House GOP conference is also at odds on other details, such as whether to use reconciliation to raise the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions – a move favored by blue state Republicans who represent the suburbs of New York City and Los Angeles, but which rural representatives are against.

"I think it's gonna be a good discussion. I think this is a great opportunity for us to discuss not just SALT…This was just about, you know, blue state Republicans coming with our priorities," said Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y.

The Big Apple’s new congestion tax, tax reductions for seniors living off social security, and using the tax code to bring pharmaceutical manufacturing back to the U.S. were all agenda items Malliotakis named.

"I have much broader agenda items than just SALT, but SALT is critically important for the New York members in particular," she said.

House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Barry Moore, R-Ala., suggested the border would be at the forefront of his mind for his group’s Trump meeting.

"The main thing is, how do we move forward? It’s going to cost some money to secure our border. It’s going to cost some money to hire more agents. But at the same time, we’ve got to cut spending where we can," Moore told Fox News Digital.

"We need to be on the same sheet of music and I think we’ll have an opportunity for Trump to hear from us, but as well for us to hear from him."

Rep. Russell Fry, R-S.C., a staunch Trump ally who said he would also be at Mar-a-Lago this weekend, dismissed concerns about differences on issues like SALT.

"I think the dialogue is important to have. At the end of the day, we need to deliver for the American people. And so while people feel differently on various issues, it’s important to have that dialogue to figure out how we can put this thing together," he said.

Trump himself has not publicly declared the specifics of what he would want to pass via reconciliation. He has said he favors a one-bill approach, but would also be open to two.

Malliotakis and other Republicans on the tax-focused House Ways & Means Committee favor one bill.

However, a member of the House Freedom Caucus doubted that would happen.

"I think we’ll talk big-picture stuff as far as reconciliation. I’m of the mindset it’ll likely be two bills, not one. But I think that’ll happen organically, you don’t have to force it," they said.

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Friday morning over whether the social media platform TikTok should be required to divest from its Chinese-owned parent company or be banned in the U.S., in a highly watched case that pits concerns over national security against free speech protections. Justices both conservative and liberal appear skeptical of the social media app's arguments.

Unless justices intervene, or TikTok’s owners agree to sell, the app will be barred from operating in the U.S. by Jan. 19.
Oral arguments center on the level of First Amendment protections that should be granted to TikTok and its foreign owner, ByteDance.

Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, told justices in oral arguments Friday that the U.S. government has "no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda," and that he believes the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution.

Francisco told Chief Justice John Roberts that he believes the court should grant TikTok First Amendment protections because it is operating as a U.S.-incorporated subsidiary. 

The TikTok attorney was also grilled over the Chinese government’s control over the app, and ByteDance’s control over the algorithm that shows certain content to users.

Asked by Justice Neil Gorsuch whether some parts of the recommendation engine are under Chinese control, Francisco said no.
"What it means is that there are lots of parts of the source code that are embodied in intellectual property, that are owned by the Chinese government" and which a sale or divestiture would restrict, he said.  "It doesn't alter the fact that this is, being operated in the United States by TikTok incorporated."

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has grappled with whether or not full First Amendment protections should be extended to foreign speakers. In previous cases, they have ruled that speech by a foreign government or individuals is not entitled to the full protections. 

The Biden administration, for its part, will argue that the law focuses solely on the company’s control of the app, which attorneys for the administration argue could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans rather than its content. 

Lawyers for the administration will also argue that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech, much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content, and therefore fails to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment. 

The court’s decision could have major ramifications for the roughly 170 million Americans who use the app. 

Justices agreed in December to hold the expedited hearing and will have just nine days to issue a ruling before the ban takes place on Jan. 19. 

Oral arguments began shortly after 10 a.m. Stay here for live updates as the oral arguments unfold.

ESSENTIAL PHONE NUMBERS FOR LOS ANGELES-AREA RESIDENTS AND HOW YOU CAN HELP THEM

Golden State Warriors head coach Steve Kerr confirmed Thursday that his childhood home, which his parents purchased more than 50 years ago, has completely burned down as a result of the wildfires burning across Southern California. 

Speaking to the media before a game against the Detroit Pistons, Kerr reacted to the devastation left behind by multiple wildfires that began earlier this week. His family home in Pacific Palisades, the area most affected by the fires, was lost in the deadly blazes. 

"It’s been tough. My family’s fine, my mom’s in good hands, but her house is gone," a solemn Kerr said.  

CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM

"The town looks like it’s just been completely wiped out – it’s surreal and devastating. But fortunately, almost everyone escaped," he added. "It’s hard to even fathom how Pacific Palisades rebuilds and how it becomes a thriving community again. It’s just shocking."

At least seven people have died as a result of multiple wildfires as thousands evacuated their homes. Around 10,000 structures from the Pacific Coast to Pasadena have burned down as strong winds continue to fuel the fires. 

CALIFORNIA WILDFIRE FORCES MOTHER OF WARRIORS HEAD COACH TO EVACUATE: 'JUST TERRIFYING'

Kerr recalled, "1969 my parents bought that house and I was just there two weeks ago for dinner… we just celebrated my mom’s 90th birthday there this past summer."

The veteran NBA coach said while his family and friends are safe, the loss is "unfathomable." 

"It’s not a loss of life, it's a loss of property and that’s an entirely different thing." 

The largest fire burning in Pacific Palisades began on Tuesday. Officials said on Thursday evening that containment was at 6%.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

Republicans slammed the sentencing of President-elect Trump on Friday, calling it a "disgrace."

Trump was sentenced Friday morning in New York City to unconditional discharge. He was convicted last year of falsifying business records after a years-long investigation by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

Despite Trump's attempts to delay the sentencing, it went forward just 10 days before his inauguration. 

The incoming president attended the proceeding virtually. "After careful analysis, this court determined only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction is an unconditional discharge," Judge Juan Merchan said. "At this time, I impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts." 

"What a joke and a disgrace," wrote Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., on X. 

Rep. Rudy Yakym, R-Ind., sounded off on the sentencing as well, writing, "Today’s sentencing is an unfortunate reminder that Democrats will stop at nothing, including weaponizing the justice system to try and destroy President Trump. Rest assured, their efforts have and will continue to fail. America’s comeback begins in 10 days."