literacy campaign essay

English Composition 121

Literacy Campaign Report: India

English 121

Prince and Erick

The Mass Literacy Campaigns in Pre and Post-Independence Era of India is viewed as the best move India made today. India is the second largest demographic country in the world and to such a population without literacy it is meaningless and challenging for economic development. Because of this, India initiated literacy campaign movements geared towards adult education to improve mass literacy despite the ongoing formal education systems. The campaigns focused on informal education systems to meet adults needs thereby improving adults’ individual health and socio-economic status meaningful for the 21 st century.  Because of the Indian literacy campaigns, literacy status improved in general among adults. Majority of the adults were able to use technology in their daily livelihood and reported a general socio-economic development.

A person who can read and write with understanding of language is called literate. However, a person who can only read but cannot write is not a literate. According to Dr. Pallvi Pandit al. International Journal or Recent Research Aspects, literacy is also defined as the skill of reading, writing and arithmetic and the ability to apply them to one’s day-to-day life. While other source claim that “Adult education is a practice in which adults engage in systematic and sustained self-educating activities in order to gain new forms of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values.

Shortly after the initiation of adult education in India, majority of adults became aware of its importance. The government realized that adult education could play a role in the development of the country. So, the government launched serval campaigns of literacy across India with the intension of providing mass literacy education. Through the initiative of the national government, the idea of adult literacy was quickly embraced by State governments. With the help of other key players, State government accelerated the formation of small self-help groups in the villages where main stream activities were not undertaken. For example, United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) in India assisted government in establishing different working curriculum for different interest groups. The curriculum considered major gaps including philosophical and historical perspectives, policy and planning, pre-literacy campaign status and issues including cultural diversities, post literacy campaign and continuing education and finally on gender mainstream and development.

Similarly, the political class were not also left behind. The former prime minister, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, post-independence era established various literacy centers, libraries, community centers, voluntary organizations, social education institution and rural and development and employment centers in support of government initiative to help eliminate the illiteracy in India.

In October 2, 1978, National Adult Education Program (NAEP) was formulated to organize adult education with literacy as cardinal component for at least people of the age group 15-35 years. The NAEP’s objective was to provide adults literacy skills for self-reliant. It was also perceived that literacy skill will make adults develop active role in their own and promote social awareness thus help combat poverty and illiteracy in India. Even though NAEP was successful in meeting majority if its goals, not every adult benefited from the adult education campaign. However, luck of complete performance was to blame on some key opinion leaders like Gandhi who was not initially for the idea of Western education. Gandhi held the view the western as romantic, anti-industrial, humanist and libertarian thinkers.

According to a survey done by Quora, it was found that countries having low literacy level are economically backward. A correlation of the importance of adult education for countries progress. Adult education is necessary for personal enrichment of individual, effective participation in many areas like social, political, international level affairs etc. similarly, adult literacy raises the standards of living and socio-economic development.

In another study by Krishna Kumar, poverty and unemployment rates decreased because of increased adult literacy campaigns in India. Notable, there has been an upward trend in production due to improve understanding and use of. Which intern has help reduce the poverty and unemployment. The study showed that poverty and unemployment rates dropped from 65 to 45 percent. Likewise, adult education has enabled India to reach out to the western world. According to an article in the India express, India can now communicate and trade with the western world. India can now engage in export and import goods and services from the West because of improved adult literacy status. The current report states that import and export rate have increased from 59 million dollars to 117 million dollars per annum.

Mass literacy campaigns in pre and post-independence era in India is notably been a success story. Due to the growing ability to use language and literacy in all sphere of life, currently India is not an isolated country anymore. Prior to literacy campaign in India, majority of Indians’ had limited access in business, technology and poor health. Now India is viewed as a major player in market economy since both old and young citizens can equally participate in the market economy and are understanding cultural diversity.

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• ← post your literacy campaign paragraphs
• Rebeca Aragon and Johnnie Grant Literacy Campaign →

5 thoughts on “ Literacy Campaign Report: India ”

By reading this report, I learned that India is receiving assistance by the government in order to increase the literacy rates resulting in an increase in the economy. A writing technique they used that I appreciated was the small paragraphs because it was easier to understand/ follow and it flowed nicely.

I was shocked to discover that a powerful figure such as Gandhi opposed the literacy movement because he viewed it as “western education,” I am interested in why a person as noble as Gandhi would oppose the idea of a literacy campaign and how he viewed it as a western practice. I appreciated how Prince and Erick organized their paper in which they divided all their ideas and information with each paragraph, each paragraph provided a new idea and insight different from the rest, not all the information was stuffed into one paragraph.

I learned from this Literacy Campaign is that the a mass literacy campaign was a good move made by India to educate its people. I appreciate that the reader used the MEAL plan in one of the paragraphs.

I learned that the growing socio-economic development in India was due to their literacy campaigns in educating adults to read and write. These campaigns helped to fight poverty and unemployment which was prevalent in India. I like that the thesis was clear with their stance that literacy campaigns in India not only positively impacted the individual lives of people, but the nation as a whole. The report was clear with supporting evidence and statistics that backed up their thesis.

I like you how you both talked about reading and writing on your campaign report essay. I agree that reading and writing is important in because there are a lot of people who could not read and write and they need help to get better education. I also like how your each paragraph are detailed and organized. You both talked about specific things in your essay from the article that you both read.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Need help with the Commons?

Email us at [email protected] so we can respond to your questions and requests. Please email from your CUNY email address if possible. Or visit our help site for more information:

• Terms of Service
• Accessibility
• Creative Commons (CC) license unless otherwise noted

Reading is a foundational skill necessary for virtually everything we do. It opens possibilities for all children to succeed—to learn and grow, to explore and imagine, to investigate and verify, and to lead fulfilling lives. Reading well instills confidence and helps reduce inequities. The disruptions due to the pandemic make focusing on literacy even more important, to assist our students not just to catch up but to thrive.

We have had more than 300+ events in 34 states (plus Puerto Rico and DC) at schools, community centers, faith-based organizations and union halls, with many more planned to continue to spread the joy of reading to students, families, educators and school staff in communities across the country in 2023.

Be a part of Reading Opens the World! Donate now and help give out another million books in 2023 and create a nation of joyful and confident readers.

The American Federation of Teachers' Reading Opens the World initiative focuses on:

• Giving teachers and school staff the tools and professional development that translate the science of reading into usable resources to help students read and read well.
• Giving parents and caregivers fun and research-based tips and tools to support literacy.
• Building on and forging new connections among families, communities, educators and schools to be partners in students’ literacy.
• Giving children and young people free books to read, love and keep, because …

Reading Opens the World!

Teacher Unions Distribute Free Books to Florida Families

Florida families want books not bans

Reading Opens a Connection with Kids, Families and Communities

Reading opens the world photo gallery, 40,000 books to students in ohio, aft launches multiyear 'reading opens the world’ campaign.

“I don’t know what happened to me, but I hated reading before. And this year, the seventh grade teacher had all these books out and I just started reading.” - Mason, seventh grade

#ReadingOpensTheWorld @aftmichigan

Shantanique

Thanks for joining us in Macomb, Shantanique! Excited to see the library you and your boys build.

#ReadingOpensTheWorld   @aftmichigan

Dad and Daughter

Thank you Tracy! And hope your students love their new books! #ReadingOpensTheWorld   @AFTunion   @nema   @120Strong

Report Writing: Literacy Campaign

Three report writing examples on a literacy campaign.

Table of Contents

Literacy is the foundation of education and the key to success in life. Without the ability to read and write, people are unable to communicate effectively, access information, and participate fully in society. A literacy campaign is an important initiative that aims to promote literacy and raise awareness about its importance. This report will outline the purpose, activities, venues, and success of a recent literacy campaign in a local community.

The purpose of the literacy campaign was to raise awareness about the importance of reading and writing. The campaign aimed to reach both adults and children who were illiterate, had low literacy levels, or lacked access to educational resources. The campaign organizers believed that literacy was a fundamental right and that everyone should have the opportunity to learn to read and write. They also recognized that literacy was essential for personal development, social inclusion, and economic growth. Therefore, the purpose of the campaign was to encourage people to value literacy and to take advantage of the opportunities provided by the campaign.

The campaign targeted both adults and children, with activities such as reading workshops and writing contests. The organizers used a variety of methods to engage the community, including posters, flyers, and social media. They also collaborated with local schools and community centers to host events and activities. The reading workshops focused on improving reading skills, comprehension, and vocabulary. The writing contests encouraged participants to express themselves creatively and to develop their writing skills. The campaign also provided access to books, journals, and other educational resources.

Local schools and community centers were used as venues for the campaign. The organizers recognized that these places were accessible and familiar to the community. They also believed that schools and community centers had a role to play in promoting literacy and education. Therefore, the campaign was designed to complement the existing educational programs and resources in these venues. The campaign organizers worked closely with the staff and volunteers of the schools and community centers to ensure that the activities were well-organized, relevant, and effective.

The success of the campaign was measured through increased participation in literacy activities and improved literacy rates in the community. The organizers collected data on the number of people who attended the workshops, the number of entries in the writing contests, and the number of books borrowed from the campaign’s library. They also monitored the literacy rates of the community before, during, and after the campaign. The results showed that the campaign had a positive impact on the community, with increased participation in literacy activities and improved literacy rates. The campaign also raised awareness about the importance of literacy and encouraged people to value education.

In conclusion, the literacy campaign was a successful initiative that promoted literacy and raised awareness about its importance. The campaign targeted both adults and children, with activities such as reading workshops and writing contests. Local schools and community centers were used as venues for the campaign, and the success of the campaign was measured through increased participation in literacy activities and improved literacy rates in the community. The campaign was a valuable contribution to the community’s education and development, and it demonstrated the power of education to transform lives.

Literacy is an essential component of personal and societal development. It provides individuals with the tools necessary to participate actively in society and the economy. However, many communities around the world face significant challenges in achieving high literacy rates. In response to this problem, literacy campaigns are often launched to increase literacy rates in targeted communities. This report will discuss the objective, strategies, success, and impact of a literacy campaign in a particular community.

The objective of the literacy campaign was to increase literacy rates in the targeted community. The campaign aimed to provide individuals with the basic literacy skills necessary to participate fully in society, including the ability to read, write, and communicate effectively. This objective was critical in addressing the challenges that the community faced, such as limited access to education and low literacy rates.

Various strategies such as awareness drives, workshops, and training sessions were employed to achieve the campaign’s goal. The campaign’s organizers conducted awareness drives in the community to raise awareness of the importance of literacy and engage community members in the campaign. Workshops and training sessions were also organized to provide individuals with the necessary literacy skills. These strategies were effective in reaching a broad range of individuals and providing them with the tools necessary to improve their literacy.

The campaign’s success was measured by the number of individuals who acquired basic literacy skills as a result of the campaign. The organizers conducted assessments to measure the campaign’s impact and found that the campaign was successful in achieving its objective. The number of individuals who acquired basic literacy skills increased significantly, which was a testament to the effectiveness of the campaign’s strategies.

The impact of the campaign can be seen in the improved literacy rates and the increased access to education opportunities for the community. The campaign’s success has led to improved literacy rates in the community, which has had a positive impact on the community’s development. Additionally, the increased access to education opportunities has provided individuals with the tools necessary to achieve their full potential and contribute to the growth of their community.

In conclusion, the literacy campaign was successful in achieving its objective of increasing literacy rates in the targeted community. The campaign’s strategies, including awareness drives, workshops, and training sessions, were effective in providing individuals with the necessary literacy skills. The campaign’s success can be seen in the improved literacy rates and increased access to education opportunities for the community. Overall, the campaign was a critical step in addressing the challenges that the community faced and promoting its development.

Literacy is a crucial aspect of human development and well-being. It is a fundamental tool for communication, personal growth, and social and economic progress. Unfortunately, many individuals around the world lack basic literacy skills, which limits their opportunities and ability to fully participate in society. In response to this issue, literacy campaigns have been launched to promote education and improve literacy rates. This report will explore the objectives, strategies, impact, and challenges of a literacy campaign.

The primary objective of the literacy campaign was to increase literacy rates and promote education. This objective was driven by the recognition that literacy is essential for personal development and social progress. By increasing literacy rates, individuals could improve their employment prospects, participate more fully in civic life, and access critical services such as healthcare and financial services. Additionally, the campaign aimed to promote education as a means of empowering individuals and communities. This included promoting formal education, such as primary and secondary schools, as well as informal education, such as vocational training and adult literacy classes.

To achieve the objectives of the campaign, several strategies were employed. The first strategy was to provide access to educational resources, such as books, computers, and educational materials. This was done by establishing community libraries, mobile libraries, and internet cafes. The second strategy was to offer adult literacy classes to individuals who lacked basic literacy skills. These classes were designed to teach reading, writing, and numeracy skills in a supportive and inclusive environment. The third strategy was to promote formal education by building and improving schools, providing scholarships, and promoting enrollment in primary and secondary schools.

The literacy campaign had a significant impact on literacy rates and educational opportunities for individuals. According to data collected during the campaign, literacy rates increased by 20% in the targeted communities. Additionally, more individuals enrolled in primary and secondary schools, and the number of adult learners increased significantly. The campaign also had a positive impact on the social and economic development of the communities, as individuals with improved literacy skills were better able to participate in civic life, access critical services, and improve their employment prospects.

The literacy campaign faced several challenges, including limited resources, cultural barriers, and inadequate infrastructure. Limited resources, such as funding and personnel, made it difficult to establish and maintain educational resources, provide adequate training for educators, and offer scholarships to students. Cultural barriers, such as gender-based discrimination and traditional attitudes towards education, made it difficult to promote education, particularly among women and girls. Inadequate infrastructure, such as poor roads and lack of electricity, made it difficult to reach remote communities and provide access to educational resources.

The literacy campaign was a critical initiative for promoting education and improving literacy rates. The objectives, strategies, impact, and challenges of the campaign demonstrated the importance of literacy as a tool for personal and social development. While the campaign faced several challenges, it was successful in achieving its objectives and improving educational opportunities for individuals. Moving forward, it is essential to continue promoting literacy and education as a means of empowering individuals and communities and promoting social and economic progress.

About Mr. Greg

Mr. Greg is an English teacher from Edinburgh, Scotland, currently based in Hong Kong. He has over 5 years teaching experience and recently completed his PGCE at the University of Essex Online. In 2013, he graduated from Edinburgh Napier University with a BEng(Hons) in Computing, with a focus on social media.

Mr. Greg’s English Cloud was created in 2020 during the pandemic, aiming to provide students and parents with resources to help facilitate their learning at home.

Whatsapp: +85259609792

[email protected]

Advertisement

Connecting to the oceans: supporting ocean literacy and public engagement

• Point-of-View
• Published: 10 February 2021
• Volume 32 , pages 123–143, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Rachel Kelly   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8364-1836 1 ,
• Karen Evans 2 ,
• Karen Alexander 1 , 3 ,
• Silvana Bettiol 4 ,
• Stuart Corney 1 , 3 ,
• Coco Cullen-Knox 1 , 5 ,
• Christopher Cvitanovic 1 , 6 ,
• Kristy de Salas 7 ,
• Gholam Reza Emad 8 ,
• Liam Fullbrook 1 , 9 ,
• Carolina Garcia 7 ,
• Sierra Ison 1 , 2 ,
• Scott Ling 3 ,
• Catriona Macleod 1 , 3 ,
• Amelie Meyer 3 ,
• Linda Murray 10 ,
• Michael Murunga 1 , 3 ,
• Kirsty L. Nash 1 , 3 ,
• Kimberley Norris 11 ,
• Michael Oellermann 3 , 12 ,
• Jennifer Scott 11 ,
• Jonathan S. Stark 13 ,
• Graham Wood 14 &
• Gretta T. Pecl 1 , 3  

21k Accesses

59 Citations

74 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Improved public understanding of the ocean and the importance of sustainable ocean use, or ocean literacy, is essential for achieving global commitments to sustainable development by 2030 and beyond. However, growing human populations (particularly in mega-cities), urbanisation and socio-economic disparity threaten opportunities for people to engage and connect directly with ocean environments. Thus, a major challenge in engaging the whole of society in achieving ocean sustainability by 2030 is to develop strategies to improve societal connections to the ocean. The concept of ocean literacy reflects public understanding of the ocean, but is also an indication of connections to, and attitudes and behaviours towards, the ocean. Improving and progressing global ocean literacy has potential to catalyse the behaviour changes necessary for achieving a sustainable future. As part of the Future Seas project ( https://futureseas2030.org/ ), this paper aims to synthesise knowledge and perspectives on ocean literacy from a range of disciplines, including but not exclusive to marine biology, socio-ecology, philosophy, technology, psychology, oceanography and human health. Using examples from the literature, we outline the potential for positive change towards a sustainable future based on knowledge that already exists. We focus on four drivers that can influence and improve ocean literacy and societal connections to the ocean: (1) education, (2) cultural connections, (3) technological developments, and (4) knowledge exchange and science-policy interconnections. We explore how each driver plays a role in improving perceptions of the ocean to engender more widespread societal support for effective ocean management and conservation. In doing so, we develop an ocean literacy toolkit, a practical resource for enhancing ocean connections across a broad range of contexts worldwide.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Importance of “Ocean Literacy” in the Anthropocene and How Environmental Education Can Help in Its Promotion

Ocean Literacy in the Twenty-First Century

Ocean Literacy: From a Ripple to a Wave

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

The ocean is threatened by a growing list of stressors, including climate change (Poloczanska et al. 2016 ; Pecl et al. 2017 ; IPCC 2019 ), overfishing (Rousseau et al. 2019 ) and pollution (Villarrubia-Gómez et al. 2018 ; Vince and Hardesty 2019 ). Together, these stressors demonstrate an urgent and escalating global need for improved understanding of the ocean and for sustainable management of the marine environment. The impact of these multiple stressors is projected to increase as the global human population expands to an expected 8.5 billion by 2030 (Jouffray et al. 2020 ). Addressing these environmental challenges requires collective action at local, national, regional and global scales. However, marine environments are intrinsically complex and embedded in dynamic socio-ecological systems. Overlooking human and social dimensions of the ocean is one of the most common factors behind conservation failure, highlighting the urgent need for actions that enhance peoples’ understanding of, connection to, and resulting pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours towards the ocean (Catalano et al. 2019 ; Stoll-Kleemann 2019 ).

Global attention is increasingly focused on strategies for fostering attitudes and behaviours that support the sustainable use of natural environments (Bamberg and Moser 2007 ; Duarte et al. 2020 ). Enhancing public awareness and knowledge of the ocean is essential to strengthen connection to the ocean, and increase motivation for behaviour change and support for solutions that can reduce or prevent human impacts on marine environments and resources (Schoedinger et al. 2005 ). Furthermore, engaging society and communities in ocean dialogue can lead to the collective production of new knowledge and the exchange of non-scientific knowledge, including local, traditional and Indigenous knowledge (Thornton and Maciejewski Scheer 2012 ; Clarke et al. 2013 ). The UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development 2021–2030 highlights the need for a ‘rigorous ocean literacy programme of activities’ to increase public awareness and knowledge that can guide sustainable behaviours and inform decision-making (UN 2018a ). In particular, the focus of this UN Ocean Decade emphasises the value of non-scientific knowledges, and the role of inclusive approaches that can encourage better stewardship and improve the management of ocean resources (UN 2019b ; Pendleton et al. 2020 ). The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) include a focus on improving conditions in the global oceans (e.g. #14: Life below water) and the Convention for Biological Diversity has also set global goals for marine environments (e.g. Aichi Target 11). An aim to increase global ocean literacy (and stewardship) demands improving social engagement with ocean issues (Mogias et al. 2019 ) and enhancing community connections to the ocean (Schuldt et al. 2016 ).

• Ocean literacy

Ocean literacy is an understanding of the ocean’s influence on society and the society’s influence on the ocean (Schoedinger et al. 2010 ; Fauville et al. 2019 ). An ocean literate individual understands fundamental concepts about ocean functioning, is able to discuss ocean issues in meaningful ways, and is also capable of making informed and responsible decisions in regards to the ocean and its resources (Cava et al. 2005; Fauville et al. 2019 ; Mogias et al. 2019 ). Ocean literacy is a broader expansion of the traditional notion of ‘literacy’ (UNESCO 2006 ) and is based on seven key principles (see Box 1 ). It is not just a measure of what people know, but is also an indication of their attitudes, behaviours, and ability to communicate about ocean issues (Brennan et al. 2019 ). Building ocean literacy amongst communities or groups of individuals is an approach to encourage responsible public behaviour towards the ocean and its resources (Fielding et al. 2019 ). The ‘goal’ of ocean literacy initiatives is to enable behaviour change, whereby citizens engage in sustainable actions to achieve solutions to marine issues (Ashley et al. 2019 ). In contrast, a lack of ocean literacy presents a significant obstacle to engaging society in environmentally sustainable behaviours (McCauley et al. 2019 ).

The modern (and to date, predominately Western) ocean literacy movement began in the United States in the 2000s, and since then has expanded internationally (Fauville et al. 2019 ). This movement developed largely in response to global recognition of marine environmental deterioration and the resultant need to improve public understanding of the oceans (Soares 1998 ; PewOceansCommission 2003 ). The first ocean literacy framework was produced by a grassroots collaboration of concerned scientists and educators (Schoedinger et al. 2005 ) and many other ocean literacy frameworks and guidance tools have been developed since (see Appendix A). These myriad frameworks centre primarily around educational programmes for children and youths, and focus on formal and school-based curricula. This is unsurprising, as environmental learning initiatives typically target children and young people, however, it is unrealistic and unfair to assign responsibility of the oceans solely to future generations (Pahl et al. 2017). There is an urgent need to educate and engage all levels of society (Hoegh-Guldberg and Bruno 2010 ). Whilst the ocean literacy principles are widely relevant to the general adult population, a more universal and overarching guidance tool for groups across all socio-demographics (i.e. marine managers, scientists, knowledge brokers, policy-makers, communities; in developed and developing countries; and in marine and landlocked regions, etc.) is needed.

Connectedness to nature (i.e. feeling a connection or affinity to nature) influences attitudes and behaviours that support the sustainable use of natural environments (Martin et al. 2016 ; Moreton et al. 2019 ; Song et al. 2019 ). For example, personal attachment to the marine environment is central to the development of marine citizenship (McKinley and Fletcher 2012 ). However, a significant challenge in engaging communities with the ocean is that, in reality, most people only spend a limited part of their life experiencing ocean environments (Cigliano et al. 2015 ). Disconnectedness is strongly linked to poor personal understanding and awareness of marine issues (McKinley and Fletcher 2010 ), and is likely exacerbated by modern lifestyles and technologies that have resulted in people progressively spending more time indoors (Pergams and Zaradic 2008 ; Basile 2016 ) and less time outside experiencing natural environments (Cox et al. 2017 ; Bratman et al. 2019 ; Truong and Clayton 2020 ).

Increasing urbanisation is another factor contributing to global disconnectedness to the ocean. It is estimated that over two-thirds of the world’s population will live in cities by 2030 (UN 2018b ). Growing coastal populations and associated urbanisation are progressively reducing access to ocean environments. For example, as populations expand and become more urbanised, people progressively are situated in areas further from the coast. Lack of transport from regions further away from the coast further exacerbates this disconnection to the coast. Further, as coastal regions are purchased by investors, public access to the ocean is increasingly restricted (Roy et al. 2018 ; Komugabe-Dixson et al. 2019 ). The global decline of traditional cultures that support local connections with the ocean is also contributing to increasing disconnectedness (Friedlander 2018 ); as younger generations move into urban environments and adopt ‘modern’ lifestyles, or as population diversity increases, local knowledge and practices are diluted and lost (Komugabe-Dixson et al. 2019 ).

In this paper, we identify drivers of ocean literacy from local through to global scales, building upon the existing literature. We elucidate trends and directions to illustrate our vision and highlight relevant and insightful case-studies. We emphasise that solutions to complex problems such as global ocean literacy demand the integration of multiple stakeholders and influence groups, across scales of time, space, organisation and society (McCauley et al. 2019 ). Building on this, we identify how drivers of ocean literacy can guide ‘pathways to action’, which we propose can improve global ocean literacy over the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development 2021–2030. In doing so, we generate an ocean literacy toolkit, a practical broad-focus resource for those working to enhance ocean learning and literacy worldwide.

Research approach

The methodological approach of this research is outlined in explicit detail in Nash et al. ( 2021 ). As with the other contributions to this Special Issue, this paper emerged as an interdisciplinary marine collaboration (i.e. marine ecology, marine socio-ecology, oceans policy, marine social science, climate impacts, ecosystem modelling, oceanography, environmental communications, psychology, philosophy, public health, maritime logistics and transdisciplinary science), that was facilitated through a series of expert workshops held in Hobart, Tasmania in 2018 and 2019. The aim of this specific collaboration was to synthesise existing knowledge and perspectives on ocean literacy from a range of disciplines and sectors, and through this synergy, outline a practical approach for furthering and improving ocean literacy to positively impact ocean use and sustainability.

This paper was initiated and developed over the series of workshops, which allowed us to bring our collectively broad range of perspectives and skills together to develop a more informed approach to understanding and improving ocean literacy than could have been achieved by one discipline or perspective. The resulting process of discussion, learning and exploration revealed our many disciplinary differences and entrenched understandings of (i) the ocean and (ii) the research process. These disciplinary tensions demanded time and space to create a ‘shared language’ and develop trust between members of our interdisciplinary team (i.e. Kelly et al. 2019 ), however they also fostered the fruitful conversations and discoveries that allowed us to identify and develop our vision towards a ‘Sustainable 2030’. The discussions and resulting outcomes of each workshop were captured in meeting minutes and working documents, developed by the co-author team (predominately remotely and online) in between workshop events. The process and results of each workshop changed our understanding and direction as new knowledge, perspectives and research were revealed. In doing so, we developed a ‘toolkit’ for progressing ocean literacy.

To begin with, we identified a set of drivers that can be harnessed to achieve enhanced outcomes for ocean literacy, before establishing the pathways through which these drivers can guide positive action on ocean literacy. Following this, we identified (potential) limitations to developing and enhancing ocean literacy. Discussions on the limitations emerged as co-authors considered their own experiences in (and knowledge of) engaging with ocean literacy research and practice, in combination with limitations highlighted in the scientific literature. In particular, we identified potential barriers and challenges to developing ocean literacy interventions and activities, considering factors including social inequalities, diverse worldviews, evolving science, and sustainable development.

Building on knowledge from ocean literacy theory and practice, we established an ocean literacy toolkit (Appendix B) founded upon the key drivers, with the aim to equip the end-user with approaches to overcome limitations to developing ocean literacy. In doing so, we consolidated a three-phase approach to progressing ocean literacy that can facilitate behavioural change as a pathway to achieving a sustainable future. This phased approach is central to building a sound understanding of the diverse approaches available for increasing ocean literacy, as well as ensuring that the toolkit can be useful and accessible to a range of end-users (i.e. communities, educators, managers, and policy-makers). The applicability of the ocean literacy toolkit is illustrated by our provision of examples of diverse existing ocean literacy initiatives. The toolkit is presented as a framework to engage a range of diverse communities with (and in learning about) ocean issues.

Drivers of ocean literacy

In this section, we elucidate the four key drivers identified as necessary to achieve public connection to the ocean and improved ocean literacy globally:

Cultural connections,

Technological developments, and

Knowledge exchange and science-policy interconnections.

These drivers emerged as the result of a series of interdisciplinary workshops that were facilitated as part of the Future Seas project. The co-authors engaged in discussions (that were centred around disciplinary expertise and existing literature) to co-define (current and future) drivers of ocean literacy, based on author expertise and experience and literature; see Nash et al. ( 2021 ) in this Special Issue for more detail.

Global education is key for achieving the SDGs, particularly in the context of the objectives of Goal #14 (i.e. ‘conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development’). Educational frameworks demonstrate that learning tends to be cumulative, gained via myriad experiences that include formal education in schools, universities and research institutions, as well as informal experiential learning. The latter includes learning provided by citizen science programmes, museums, zoos and aquariums (e.g. Monterey Bay Aquarium), exhibitions (e.g. SeaWalls by the Pangeaseed Foundation), recreation (e.g. experiential learning through fishing, diving, etc.), and media including film (e.g. Finding Nemo ), television (BBC’s Blue Planet ), books, newspapers, magazines and the internet (e.g. social media and online games) (Dierking et al. 2003 ).

Initiatives that regularly bring informal and formal educational approaches together, such as science learning events (e.g. annual science weeks), provide foundational science-based information and new scientific knowledge to the public. These events can engage people with current knowledge and facilitate the exchange of new concepts and knowledge on shorter timeframes than formal curricula-based learning alone (Schmidt and Kelter 2017 ; Koomen et al. 2018 ). For example, the Australian National Science Week provides opportunity for Australian society to engage in formal science and informal learning. Over 1000 events are hosted and delivered by universities, schools, research institutions, libraries, museums and science centres around Australia each year, attracting more than a million people, including children and adults, science amateurs, and professionals. Similar science education initiatives are held in other countries (e.g. Science Week Ireland, Primary Science Week New Zealand, India’s National Science Day), with the shared objective of inspiring people to learn and increase their participation in, and understanding of, science.

Experiential forms of learning have become of increasing interest and relevance to ocean learning in recent years (Jose et al. 2017 ; Owens 2018 ). Markedly, educators and science communicators are moving from older models of learning such as the ‘knowledge deficit model’ approach (i.e. which assumes that one-way communication of information infers uptake and application of such information) implicit in traditional approaches to ocean (science) learning (Hecker et al. 2018 ), to recognise alternative community understandings and epistemologies and their role in informing and supporting (science) learning (NASEM 2018 ). Whilst the value of experiential learning in an ocean literacy context has not been explicitly assessed to date, such forms of learning and connecting are evidenced to improve knowledge and skills, and enable positive connections and attitudes towards ocean environments to be developed (Dublickas and Ilich 2017 ).

Citizen science is a form of informal and (potentially) experiential learning, as participants learn via engaging in science activities (Crall et al. 2012 ) and knowledge-sharing (Nursey-Bray et al. 2018 ; Pecl et al. 2019). Citizen science, particularly marine-focused programmes, has expanded in scope and scale in recent years (Roy et al. 2012 ; Hyder et al. 2015 ; Nursey-Bray et al. 2018 ; Kelly et al. 2020). Citizen science has been identified as an effective and rigorous method for advancing marine conservation and improving management (Cigliano et al. 2015 ) by enhancing public engagement (Danielsen et al. 2014 ). As a result, multiple formal organisations have been established around the world to foster linkages between science and society, with a focus on addressing shared concerns and issues through science-based approaches (e.g. Citizen Science Association USA, Australian Citizen Science Association, Citizen Science Asia, European Citizen Science Association) (Shirk and Bonney 2015). Participation in citizen science connects people to natural environments including the ocean (Forrester et al. 2017 ), increases their concern for conservation issues (Johnson et al. 2014 ; Nursey-Bray et al. 2018 ), and can provide opportunities for communities to contribute to addressing these issues (Danielsen et al. 2014 ). As such, designing citizen science programmes to improve awareness and capacity to advocate for ocean environments (Ellwood et al. 2017 ) and solutions to ocean issues, can play a key role in engaging communities and increasing ocean literacy.

Cultural connections

Local and traditional knowledge can play a critical role in retaining understanding of the ocean within and amongst communities, and is increasingly being recognised as an important component of ocean literacy initiatives (Ford et al. 2016 ; Santoro et al. 2017 ; David-Chavez and Gavin 2018 ; IPCC 2019 ). In the Arctic, for example, Indigenous knowledge is widely included in community‐based research and work partnerships conducted with government and other groups (Ford et al. 2015 ). An example of use of such knowledge is the observations of traditional fishers in the Baltic Sea, who reported the first records of blind Baltic Herring to local researchers in 2016. The researchers then linked the incidences of blindness to waste water from a new industrial plant in the area (Mustonen 2019 ). In Australia, Indigenous communities in the Torres Strait documented regular inundation of coastal areas during high tide associated with a tropical cyclone; a phenomenon that had not been observed in their traditional ecological knowledge system since the 1940s. Despite limited ‘scientific’ observational data on the inundation of the islands, the traditional communities’ knowledge provided vital information that informed authorities and communities of the need to move further inland and raise the height-level of housing and settlements (Green 2006 ).

Historic intergenerational interactions with the ocean inform modern cultural identity, social values, and knowledge and practices, and continue to influence ocean literacy as cultural relationships with the ocean change and evolve (UNESCO 2009 ). For example, many traditional connections are shared and developed across artistic practices such as music, dance, poetry, sculpture, painting, film, theatre, literature, local social traditions, religion and mythology (Zurba and Berkes 2014 ; Hobart 2019 ). Oral traditions, in particular, play a central role in the intergenerational exchange of cultural knowledge about oceans and coasts and are re-emerging in recognition of the need for assessments of biodiversity, natural resources and climate change (Mustonen 2019 ); for example, Indigenous Australian communities have transferred climate records from generation to generation through their traditional ‘dreamtime stories’ (Roos 2013 ). Traditional marine communities belong to cultures where social identities and ways of life (including geography, culture and wildlife) are aligned to the sea (Song et al. 2019 ).

The transfer and sharing of traditional knowledge and practices between groups and generations are also lessons of experiential learning. Creating exchanges and relationships where learners can see and value their own experiences and understandings of resources is associated with increased persistence to learn and connect with these topics (Brossard et al. 2005 ), with considerable benefit for communities and researchers alike. For example, the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance (NAILSMA) uses land and sea management-based activities as a focused engagement tool to achieve improved community learning, literacy and higher education by articulating the strong traditional links of Indigenous culture with existing communities’ value and connection to the environment.

The benefits and experiences people derive from marine environments over periods of time build a fundamental sense of place, or deep-seated emotional bond with specific places and/or activities, thereby influencing environmental behaviours that can be regarded as cultural values (van Putten et al. 2018 ). Developments in the emerging field of neuro-conservation have demonstrated that being near the ocean can foster strong emotional interest in marine environments, and also improve personal well-being (Nichols 2014 ). For example, ocean-centred sports including surfing, diving, and sailing, create experiential learning opportunities that can engender strong connections to oceans (Lazarow et al. 2008 ; Nichols 2014 ). Further, these ocean sports and related sub-cultures have been demonstrated to influence behaviours that can support sustainable ocean use and generate personal attachment to the marine environment (Wiener et al. 2016 ).

Place-based attachment is a component of sense of place and infers that people who develop deep attachments and/or strongly identify with a place (i.e. a marine environment) will consider the interests of that place beyond their own interests (Brown and Raymond 2007 ). For example, local peoples’ attachment to place has been shown to positively influence their engagement in environmentally friendly behaviour (Song et al. 2019 ). However, because sense of place is often intrinsically linked to cultural identity via history, social connections and personal understandings (Ryfield et al. 2019 ; Song et al. 2019 ), it can be a difficult feeling to articulate and quantify. Metrics of sense of place associated with marine environments are slowly being developed to better incorporate cultural values into marine management (van Putten et al. 2018 ).

Technological developments

In modern society, technologies (including web-based resources) are used by up to 95% of the population in countries worldwide (worldbank.org; ITU 2019). The number of mobile devices (including smartphones and tablets) has now exceeded the world’s human population (to an estimated 7.22 billion devices in 2016) (Laranjo et al. 2015 ; Poushter 2016 ). It is anticipated that over 75% of the global population will have access to a smartphone device by 2025 (GSMA 2018). Increasing access to technology and the internet is likely to increase opportunities to engage and connect people to ocean issues on digital platforms. Information and communication technologies have become increasingly integrated across all sectors of society (Silverstone 2017 ). These emerging technologies have huge potential for engaging and educating groups about the ocean and in particular, for sharing and developing ocean knowledge; e.g., online resources can further current engagement and education activities (Benway et al. 2019 ; Moltmann et al. 2019 ).

Technology facilitates improved learning pathways by providing engaging and emotional experiences (Lee et al. 2013 ) that can reach targeted audiences from local to global scales. Technology-enabled resources are shown to successfully improve science and ocean literacy via an increasing number of online games and learning tools targeted across a range of age groups, and available on websites and smartphone platforms (Wu and Lee 2015 ; Brennan et al. 2019 ). The use of educational videos and games has been demonstrated to improve understanding of the causes and impacts of marine issues. For example, Medema et al. ( 2019 ) reported that many organisations concerned with sustainability and marine environments have begun to develop games with persuasive or learning messages, and that these games can prepare (and potentially incentivise) the changes urgently needed to address current and emerging environmental issues.

In an ocean literacy context, technology can assist in increasing environmentally-friendly behaviours; for example, improving youth understanding and resulting behaviour change in regards to marine plastic (Schoedinger et al. 2005 ; Hartley et al. 2015 ). Science agencies and communicators are producing more online content to distil complex science into understandable information that can be broadly used by wider society; e.g., via online magazines (e.g. Hakai , SEVENSEAS and ECOS magazines), podcasts (e.g. the NOAA ocean podcast, Beyond Penguins , OCTOPOD ), videos (e.g. the Fisheye Project , the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s Climate Outlooks ), and associated social media threads (e.g. see Kopke et al. 2019 ).

Still, technology is not a panacea for improving engagement and access to ocean learning and experiences (Lahoz-Monfort et al. 2019 ). Virtual experiences of nature do not elicit the same sensory stimulations and responses as real experiences (Truong and Clayton 2020 ), and thus influence how people (can) emotionally connect to the ocean and adopt associated pro-environmental behaviours. Furthermore, internet technologies now provide opportunities for ready distribution of false, adulterated or misreported information (i.e. ‘fake news’) and as a result, partisan and opinionated reporting has proliferated (Milhailidis and Viotty 2017 ; Barton 2019 ). Support for the maintenance and distribution of this partisan information is driven by multiple societal factors (Lewandowsky et al. 2017 ; Scheufele and Krause 2019 ), with some age groups particularly prone. For example, people over the ages of 65 are six times more likely to share incorrect and misleading information on internet sites than other age groups (Guess et al. 2019 ). Despite this, technological advancements and enhanced access to technologies potentially provide many innovative pathways for furthering ocean literacy, particularly at scale.

Knowledge exchange and science-policy interconnections

The aim of increasing ocean literacy requires that learning should not only be integrated into educational tools and curricula, but also in policy development (Costa and Caldeira 2018 ). When developing policies that might have an influence on the environment, policy-makers are tasked with the complex mission of balancing public perceptions, needs and values with multiple human activities, in order to develop the legislative infrastructure that can support and regulate those activities. In doing so, policy-makers are expected to develop policy principles and operational procedures based on the best available information. Thus, scientific outputs need to be communicated in formats that are accessible to policy makers, to ensure that new ocean policies are founded upon current knowledge and evidence (Bayliss-Brown and Ní Cheallacháin 2016 ; Fernández Otero et al. 2019 ) and that policy makers are aware of the need to incorporate those outputs. As such, marine science outputs are critical for informing a range of regional and international legal and policy developments that address key issues including climate change, marine conservation and the sustainable use of marine areas (e.g. areas beyond national jurisdiction), as well as for achieving and assessing existing policy directives (e.g. the EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive) (Fernández Otero et al. 2019 ). However, in reality, the science-policy process is complex and messy (Evans et al. 2017 ), limited by multiple barriers that include the disconnect between science and policy time-scales (i.e. short-term policy agendas versus need for long-term conservation agendas), poor engagement between science and policy-makers, and the fact that marine issues are multi-faceted, complex and uncertain (Walsh et al. 2019 ).

The urgency of action required to address current ocean issues renders it necessary to make existing resources and knowledge available (Fernández Otero et al. 2019 ), and emphasises the need for (i) effective knowledge exchange (i.e. with and between science, industry, policy and communities) (Cvitanovic et al. 2015 ), and (ii) increasing opportunity for knowledge co-production (Meadow et al. 2015 ), particularly at the science-policy interface. When facilitated successfully, knowledge exchange increases the likelihood that knowledge and evidence can be used in policy and that knowledge created is relevant to policy. This then increases the likelihood of those policy interventions achieving their objectives (Cash et al. 2003 ; Cvitanovic et al. 2015 ). For example, the EU-funded EKLIPSE project ( https://www.eklipse-mechanism.eu/ ) is an innovative initiative that brings science, policy, and stakeholders together to develop linkages between actors, to ensure that environmental decisions made within the EU are based on ‘best available knowledge’. The project has a long-term goal of sustaining these linkages and exchange. It also seeks to develop a support mechanism for cooperation that can identify research priorities, enable knowledge transfer and synthesis, and support new networks that can enhance environmental research and decision-making into the future. Similarly, the science-led initiative ‘Consensus for Action’ is enabling scientists to communicate the significance of environmental issues to policy-makers worldwide, providing them with accessible and digestible knowledge from leading science research on pertinent global issues (e.g. climate change, ecosystem loss, pollution and population growth) (Barnosky et al. 2016 ). The initiative is also working to connect with communities and equip them with a platform to voice their need for policy-makers to take action. When knowledge exchange is one-way or infrequent or fails to be inclusive of all stakeholders, the effective use of knowledge is compromised; science is often focused on yesterday’s problems (thereby producing non-salient information), or decision-making is done with yesterday’s knowledge (therefore is based on information that may not be relevant) (Cash et al. 2003 ).

Knowledge co-production infers that decision-makers (and other actors) actively collaborate with scientific research projects from inception and development, and also participate and contribute to the project implementation and delivery (including design, implementation and analysis) (Norström et al. 2020 ). Successful co-produced science initiatives demonstrate the value of such approaches, particularly in achieving equitable and sustainable project and policy outcomes. For example, in the case of a mussel fishery in the Dutch Wadden Sea, knowledge co-production between resource users, science and policy led to a shared knowledge-base and improved governance of the fishery, which helped to stabilise conflict and controversy associated with the fishery (van der Molen et al. 2015 ). In Scotland, the Community of Arran Seabed Trust ( COAST ) initiative established a community-led ecosystem research programme that provided the impetus for further scientific monitoring, and eventually resulted in a collaborative community, science and policy effort to designate 30 marine protected areas in Scottish Waters (Stewart et al. 2020 ). Training opportunities for scientists to engage with policy (e.g. through schemes such as the Australian Academy of Science Annual Science-policy Internship) are needed to equip (particularly early-career) researchers with the skills, knowledge, and perspectives necessary to successfully create co-produced knowledge and outputs with policy and other actors (Evans and Cvitanovic 2018 ).

Moving beyond ‘business as usual’ to a sustainable 2030 – a toolkit for ocean literacy

A succinct guide for achieving ocean literacy is required in order to understand how levels of ocean literacy can increase over time. Considering these limitations, and in recognition of the vast potential for improving global ocean literacy during the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development 2021–2030, here we develop a toolkit for ocean literacy (see Appendix B ). The ocean literacy toolkit brings together theoretical approaches to learning, frameworks for understanding target communities and assessing ocean literacy activities/interventions, as well as practical examples of existing techniques and ocean literacy activities/interventions, with an aim to reduce current gaps between science and public understanding of science, and guide increased ocean literacy across society.

First, the toolkit presents ‘ten best practice principles for environmental learning’ – considerations for those wishing to design and implement an ocean literacy activity/intervention. Second, the toolkit introduces an activity/intervention design and implementation framework that draws on Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom et al. 1956 ; Anderson et al. 2001 ) as a pathway for learning and evaluation, and employs the Seven Principles of Ocean Literacy outlined in (Santoro et al. 2017 ), following (Cava et al. 2005) as a focus for that learning. This framework identifies key stages for action grouped under two phases and delineates how ocean literacy activities/interventions can be implemented in practice, including identifying communities that might benefit and the specific issues an activity/intervention might be directed towards. Last, the toolkit highlights examples of diverse activities/interventions currently being successfully implemented to achieve ocean literacy in myriad contexts (e.g. small and large scale, experiential learning, multiple age-groups, technological/digital, etc.). When ocean literacy initiatives are tailored to relevant issues and communities, they increase knowledge uptake and engender attitudes of concern that can promote personal action (Ashley et al. 2019 ).

As outlined and discussed in this paper, the concept of ocean literacy continues to evolve as new ocean literacy initiatives and approaches (including technologies; see Appendix A ) are continually being developed (UN 2018 a; Ashley et al. 2019 ). As of 2020, public involvement in citizen science is growing, and wide-reaching media campaigns (e.g., #PlasticFree, #Take3ForTheSea) and documentaries (e.g., the BBC’s Blue Planet 2 ) are educating and encouraging diverse communities to engage in ocean-friendly behaviours. Recognition of traditional knowledge and the importance of cultural connections is increasing (Kikiloi et al. 2017 ). Thus, it is likely that a ‘business as usual’ trajectory will still achieve some positive change in the field of ocean literacy, with potential for substantive change in some instances. However, limitations to the current trajectory and areas in which increased efforts are required are apparent when we consider the scale at which ocean literacy will need to increase in order to meet the goals set by the UN 2030 Agenda.

In this section, we highlight five main limitations that are currently impeding the potential development and improvement of global ocean literacy:

Youth-centric ocean learning,

Western-centric programmes,

Single-issue focus,

The ‘digital divide’, and

Disconnect between society and marine science and policy.

We emphasise, however, that these limitations are not all encompassing and that they can largely be addressed or at least, reduced, by harnessing approaches which reflect the drivers of ocean literacy. Linking to the ocean literacy toolkit ( Appendix B ), below we detail how the drivers of ocean literacy can be harnessed to achieve enhanced outcomes overall. Below, we identify examples and pathways to overcoming the limitations, to demonstrate how the application of the drivers can be facilitated in practice. The principles and initiatives identified in the toolkit are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provide examples of transformational ways through which each of the four drivers can be engaged to address limitations and barriers to ocean literacy, and facilitate improved ocean literacy, in support of achieving a ‘Sustainable 2030’ as envisaged under the UN 2030 Agenda and the Future Seas project.

Impediment 1: youth-centric ocean learning

Youth ocean literacy is perceived to be increasing (e.g. Lee et al. 2019 ), largely as a result of ocean literacy curricula being adopted in some schools and youth groups in some regions around the world (Fauville et al. 2018a ). However, opportunities for other groups in society to engage with ocean literacy are less prevalent (Fernández Otero et al. 2019 ). This is particularly problematic when considering that youth are most likely to be excluded from decision-making processes (Gal 2017 ; Botchwey et al. 2019 ). It is typically adults who engage in decisions that impact the ocean (e.g., choosing between sustainable versus unsustainable seafood or between disposable versus reusable/recycled products, etc.) and who potentially have the power to drive current change through voting behaviour, placing lobbying pressure on government actors and their involvement in decision making processes (Vromen and Colin 2010 ; Gal 2017 ). There is a critical need for approaches that can target and improve ocean literacy across all components of society. Improving opportunities for ocean learning requires better access to comprehensive, deep-level learning across all age groups and across all of society, including in particular those with limited access to the ocean (i.e. disadvantaged and/or landlocked communities). This learning is unlikely to be achieved through curricula and formal learning activities alone.

Engagement in ocean-centred activities (i.e. fishing, sailing, beach-going, etc.) provides experiential learning opportunities that can engender positive social experiences, deeper personal connections to the ocean, and stronger place attachments that enhance understanding and appreciation of the marine environment (Principles 4, 6; Examples 3, 9, 13) (Ainsworth et al. 2019 ). Emerging research suggests that positive people–place relationships can also be fostered without direct personal experience of a marine environment. This research might provide means to (re)develop connections with urban or land-locked populations and improve their knowledge of the ocean (Examples 4, 6, 8). For example, (Gurney et al. 2017 ) demonstrated that cultural connections can be developed beyond conventional expectations, and that connections to place (e.g. Great Barrier Reef) can be developed without physically visiting that environment. Similarly, ‘blue space’ initiatives have led to applied community-centred approaches to improving awareness and connection to marine environments amongst urban populations (Gascon et al. 2017 ; Garrett et al. 2019 ). Experiential approaches, including the development of ‘city marine parks’, specifically aim to engage urban citizens with the marine environment in order to improve their understanding of the ocean, foster feelings of connectedness and stewardship, and promote cultures of urban marine citizenship (Principle 8) (Pittman et al. 2019 ), thereby engaging groups of society who otherwise would have no exposure to ocean literacy learning.

Furthermore, media dialogue can be employed to increase ocean literacy amongst a wider population (Examples 1, 5). Plastic pollution, in particular, is a marine issue that has gained attention across the planet. For example, in 2015, Henderson Island in the South Pacific made headlines as ‘the most polluted place on the planet’ Footnote 1 this media uptake significantly piqued public awareness of ocean plastic pollution and the island was subsequently extensively studied by scientists (Lavers and Bond 2017 ; Serra-Gonçalves et al. 2019 ). This media and resulting public interest in Henderson Island, and other instances of research and media communicating the effects of ocean plastic pollution around the world (Beaumont et al. 2019 ; Gibbs et al. 2019 ; van der Mheen et al. 2019 ), demonstrate the speed at which ocean knowledge can be shared with society, thereby increasing public understanding of emerging and relevant marine issues and research (Principle 9) and marine stewardship. This rapid uptake is exemplified by how different organisations have begun to incorporate sustainable and recycled plastic manufacturing as a key point-of-difference in their marketing narrative (e.g., businesses such as 4Ocean, Elvis & Kresse, Mós, etc.)

Impediment 2: western-centric programmes

Most recent developments in the ocean literacy movement have been achieved and implemented in Western, and predominately English-speaking, countries (for case examples, see Fauville et al. 2018a ). Whilst numerous educational programmes and platforms have been implemented with the aim of widespread use, the uptake of these programmes beyond western and predominantly English-speaking platforms is limited by (i) the capacity for integration into national curricula (Blum et al. 2013 ; Gough 2017 ; McPherson et al. 2018 ; Wulff and Johannesson 2019 ), (ii) the lack of financial and institutional support, particularly in developing countries (de Gusmão Pedrini et al. 2019 ), (iii) regional variability in access to technology, particularly in the context of developed versus developing countries (Poushter 2016 ), (iv) the capacity for transitioning from content-based to more transformative (and potentially digital) learning curricula (Bangay and Blum 2010 ; Leicht et al. 2018 ), and (v) the availability of educational content that can be tailored to local contexts and languages (and narratives) and can enable meaningful connections that are representative of communities (e.g. Lee et al. 2019 ). There is a need to develop and implement ocean literacy programmes that are inclusive of local contexts and culture, as well as to improve the associated capacity to deliver and improve ocean literacy across regions, languages and cultures in the long-term.

Respectful inclusion of local and traditional knowledge can enhance modern approaches to understanding the marine environment by providing a holistic perspective, and facilitating cultural connections and ocean literacy (Principle 1) (Kikiloi et al. 2017 ). Today, cultural values, knowledge, and approaches to using marine environments are increasingly being recognised and incorporated into regional marine management (Example 12) (Fulton et al. 2011 ; Kikiloi et al. 2017 ; McKinley et al. 2019 ). Integration of traditional knowledge and methods are also enabling more socially accepted and environmentally sustainable outcomes (Principles 2, 7, 8); e.g., sea country in Tasmania (TebrakunnaCountry and Lee 2019 ); ra’ui amongst Polynesian cultures (Aburto et al. 2015 ); Sgeulachdan na Mara (‘ Sea Stories ’) in Scotland (Example 14) (Brennan 2018 ), and Navigating Change in Hawaii (NOAA 2019 ). Furthermore, disconnected or displaced local communities are increasingly reconnecting with their traditional places and practices; for example, in 2019, the traditional Heiltsuk community in Canada were successful in reinstating a traditional ‘λiác'i (or ‘big house’—a customary space for acts of governance and ceremony). This cultural resurgence is enabling communities to revive their knowledge sharing and ocean practices, with growing interest and potential to share and communicate this knowledge with wider society.

Indigenous/Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs) are a successful example of interactive collaboration between contemporary governance models and traditional knowledge systems. For example, traditional knowledge of the sea (i.e., traditional ocean literacy) is now being used to conserve the environmental values of the seas surrounding Coron Island in the Philippines and has become central to the management of the Coron Island ICCA (Sampang 2005 ; Kothari 2008 ). In Fiji, community-based resource management is a dynamic system of social interventions, shaped by local practices and influenced by a combination of internal and external events. Indigenous Fijian (iTaukei) communities hold customary marine tenure over Fiji’s inshore waters, and continue to use traditional knowledge to harvest and manage these marine resources (Principles 4, 8); (Sloan and Chand 2016 ). Customary practices are the basis of community-based resource management activities and encourage groups to better understand both the influence of cultural roles on the effectives of local marine management areas, and how traditional practices can address the challenges faced today and into the future (Principle 10).

Impediment 3: single-issue focus

Increased public attention on trending issues such as the plastic pollution crisis has resulted in reduced market demand for plastic products (Locock et al. 2017) and policy change (e.g. EU plastic ban by 2025), with flow-on benefits for the environment including reducing sources of plastic inputs into the ocean. Given the complexity of marine environments, and the number of stressors impacting the ocean, such single-issue focus can assist in simplifying complexities for broader audiences and avoid overwhelming audiences to the point of disengagement. However, a single-issue focus overlooks other stressors impacting the ocean (e.g. overfishing, climate change, habitat loss, invasive species, and pollution) and the need for integrated changes that can provide for the mitigation of these (Stafford and Jones 2019 ). Ocean literacy initiatives should be focused around integrated approaches that combine knowledge types and communication strategies to provide holistic understanding of issues and engage communities in sustainable approaches to marine resource use and management (Fletcher et al. 2009 ; Vince and Hardesty 2016 ).

As highlighted above, traditional knowledge systems provide holistic perspectives on marine systems and can provide alternative approaches to enhancing ocean literacy (Kikiloi et al. 2017 ). They also offer a perspective that allows for the acknowledgement of multiple issues and consideration of alternative approaches that can be integrated in addressing ocean issues. In many instances, traditional knowledge systems are based on valuing the relationship individuals have with their environment; decisions and behaviours associated with local ecology (i.e. the natural resources and environments communities interact with) are reflective of community perceptions of themselves, in relation to their surrounding environments (Principles 3, 7) (Berkes et al. 1994 ). Amongst Western communities, studies have identified that individuals primarily source information about the ocean from television and the internet (Gelcich et al. 2014 ). There is therefore a need for information provided via such platforms to extend reporting beyond single issues and adopt more integrated and holistic reporting of ocean issues, and also solutions being developed to address them (Examples 2, 8, 17), if wider community ocean literacy and stewardship are to be achieved.

Furthermore, as evidenced by the plastic pollution crisis, over-simplification of an issue can also result in solutions being over-simplified. Most public awareness and action on plastic pollution mitigation centres around pushing for the use of reusable utensils (e.g. ‘keepcups’), promoting beach clean-ups, or publicising new technological solutions to ‘clean up the ocean’ (Stafford and Jones 2019 ). Whilst these technological solutions are well-intended to reduce pollution in the ocean, they distract from the root cause of this pollution; over-reliance on (and poor disposal of) plastic-packaged products, and environmentally-damaging fishing practices (Li et al. 2016 ). Addressing this problem of plastic pollution, and other wicked problems such as climate change, demands major changes to human behaviour (Principle 7) (Eagle et al. 2016 ), (which can be supported by improving ocean literacy to inform and encourage (more realistic) ocean-friendly behaviours (Principle 6) (Cash et al. 2003 ; Ashley et al. 2019 ; Fernández Otero et al. 2019 ).

Impediment 4: the digital divide

Increasing reliance on technology for engaging and teaching people about the ocean (particularly in the current COVID-19 climate) is likely to widen existing knowledge gaps between digitally-divided groups. Thus, enabling wider uptake and availability will be crucial in maximising the utility of technology as a key driver for achieving ocean literacy and the broader objectives of SDG #14 (Lahoz-Monfort et al. 2019 ). It should be noted, however, that society exhibits varying levels of trust in the information that is provided to them via digital platforms. Research has documented that communities place their greatest trust in scientific outcomes (i.e. reports and journal publications) (Gelcich et al. 2014 ), highlighting the need to increase the accessibility of easily digestible and up-to-date scientific outputs (Principle 9). One example of successful scientific knowledge sharing is The Conversation ( https://theconversation.com/ ), an Australian-led online journal initiative that publishes publicly-accessible articles on the research behind current and emerging topics of regional relevance. The journal network now extends across several regional chapters (and also provides global perspectives) that provide a journalistic format for society to access current science (Zardo et al. 2018 ).

The use of technology has significant potential to enhance sharing and uptake of comprehensible information about the ocean (Examples 4, 5, 11, 14). For example, as smartphones continue to evolve, they are increasingly enabling access to technology and the internet, which historically have been restricted in many societies around the world. However, despite the increasing availability of modern technologies described above, many regions and demographics still lack access to (or choose not to use) technology. This resulting digital divide (i.e. the gap between those with access to technology and those without) is influenced by multiple factors, including socio-economics, age, gender, tech-literacy and social licence (Laranjo et al. 2015 ; Poushter 2016 ; UN 2019a ). Technological literacy (i.e. knowledge about technology, and the ability to learn and develop skills that maximise opportunities provided by technology) is a limitation that particularly drives the digital divide in more developed nations; where lower-income, lesser educated, unemployed, rural and older populations have limited access and opportunity to engage in learning about digital technologies (Montagnier and Wirthmann 2011 ; Poushter 2016 ) and therefore have limited access to learning experiences provided through these platforms. Technological infrastructure also plays a role in determining how technology is shared, accessed, adopted and developed. In particular, internet access is the primary factor driving the global digital divide. It is estimated that more than 75% of populations in low and middle income countries do not have regular access to internet (Poushter 2016 ) although as highlighted above, this is changing.

Many initiatives are already addressing the digital divide in practice. For example, in the Western Indian Ocean region, the SOLSTICE Project ( Sustainable Oceans, Livelihoods and food Security through Increased Capacity in Ecosystems) aims to improve the quantity and quality of data collected in the Western Indian Ocean by providing local training and access to technological equipment (Principle 6). The project is working to increase knowledge transfer and uptake by employing low-cost technologies (e.g., numerical models, satellite data, autonomous robotics) to cheaply and efficiently generate environmental data in real-time. Whilst the primary end-users of this knowledge transfer initiative are policy-makers and marine managers, components of the project also engage the wider community in ocean learning via outreach activities including educational online videos and a massive open online course (MOOC). Another example of tech use for furthering ocean literacy is the Australian Ocean Lab ( AusOcean ), a non-governmental organisation that uses open-source technology to engage and educate children about the ocean. Their project Network Blue engages with school-age students to collaboratively construct, deploy, and maintain floating ocean monitoring stations which provide data to a growing citizen science project network (Principles 2, 6). The design of this project – i.e. use of low-cost, widely-accessible technology (an open-source microcontroller) and materials (PVC pipe), and freely available assemblage instructions – has increased opportunity for its uptake as an educational and scientific activity that could also potentially engage other groups in experiential citizen science learning.

Impediment 5: disconnect between society and marine science and policy

To date, the ocean literacy movement has primarily been driven by scientists and educators whose work is associated with marine science (Kopke et al. 2019 ). However, as outlined above, ocean literacy is a challenge and opportunity for all parts of society, including educators, children and adults, wider community groups, scientists, consumers and policy/decision makers (Borja et al. 2020 ), and there is a resulting need for more inclusive approaches to marine science and decision-making. Ocean literacy is founded upon knowledge sharing and learning and thus, relies on the communication of accessible and up-to-date marine science information (Principle 9). It is no longer enough to ‘simply do the science and publish an academic paper’ (Barnosky et al. 2016 ), and the science communication efforts and initiatives that many authors of this collaborative paper have contributed to (Example 5, 10, 12, 13, 16) exemplify the need and possibility of developing and sharing research further to achieve community and policy impact outside of ‘the Ivory Tower’ (Kelly et al. 2018 ). Scientists can also communicate research in indirect ways, such as supporting citizen science projects that increase community trust in science and conservation (Principles 2, 3) (Bonney et al. 2016 ; Kelly et al. 2019 ), engaging with remote learners in ocean-focused massive open online courses (MOOCs) (Fielding et al. 2019 ), or by collaborating with ‘ocean champions’, community leaders or celebrities who can deliver marine science messages to wider audiences (Principles 4, 8, 10; Examples 12, 13, 14) (Day 2017 ).

Optimistic messages and positive stories, in particular, encourage people to collaborate strategically in addressing pressing marine environmental problems (Principle 5). Optimism supports the personal and collective efficacy needed to instigate joint action for a cause (McAfee et al. 2019 ). However, such messages of hope risk diluting the urgency and extent of environmental problems (Hornsey and Fielding 2016 ) and (science) communicators and educators should ensure their optimistic messages are centred upon realism (Principle 9) (Cvitanovic and Hobday 2018 ). Thus, complex ocean issues are best communicated using interdisciplinary approaches, such as the Future Seas ( https://futureseas2030.org/ ) initiative, that bring together natural scientists (e.g. ecologists, oceanographers) and social and behavioural scientists (e.g. sociologists, psychologists), as well as community stakeholders and traditional owners (Examples 12, 13), to enhance the palatability and resonance of ocean science for communities and other marine stakeholders (Principle 8) (McAfee et al. 2019 ). Marine researchers, in particular, are often passionate workers in their fields who already act as advocates and educators without realising it (Parsons 2016 ). However, we note that scientists alone cannot be expected to communicate research and emerging ocean issues to society. Whilst engaging and learning from stakeholders can be a rewarding experience, it can also become time-consuming and resource-draining (Illingworth 2017). Expanding collaborations to include professional science communicators, whose training and qualifications enable them to understand the needs and contexts of particular ocean issues as well as identify best means, to connect theses message to communities and stakeholders (Kelly et al. 2018 ).

Importantly, ocean literacy learning should be not only be integrated into educational programmes and curricula, but also in policy development (Costa and Caldeira 2018 ). Long-term sustainability for marine socio-ecological systems can be enhanced where decision-making processes recognise and incorporate multiple, diverse and often-conflicting values of the marine environment held by society, especially as excluded groups are likely to question the legitimacy of decisions they have not been party to deciding (Principles 3, 7, 8) (Cash et al. 2003 ). In order to achieve this, new pathways for open and trusted knowledge exchange are needed. Clarke and Flannery ( 2019 ) emphasise a need to i) empower stakeholders to produce and use different knowledge types (i.e. scientific, traditional, etc.; Principles 1, 2), and ii) improve capacities to engage stakeholders and communities in marine decision-making processes (Principles 6, 8). Meaningful interactions and participation in such dialogue (i.e. in contrast to one-way communication) encourage trust, collaboration, ownership and stewardship – all critical components of successful ocean (literacy) programmes (Examples, 10, 12, 13, 16) (Young et al. 2013 ; Bennett and Dearden 2014 ).

As we have documented, ocean literacy programmes are widespread and diverse and while they are likely to have shared goals, the ability to quantitatively measure progress in global ocean literacy is currently lacking. There is increasing recognition that universal processes for measuring the effectiveness of programmes are needed for making and tracking progress in ocean literacy (Fauville et al. 2018b ). The toolkit has been intentionally created as a practical resource that can guide groups and communities working to implement contextual activities/interventions for improving ocean literacy across spatial and temporal scales and applicable in a broad range of contexts. How, and to what extent, the toolkit might be implemented will be dependent on those contexts, but the flexibility of the framework means that it is applicable and scalable, from small introductory initiatives through to formal widespread curricula. However, we note that paying attention to local and cultural contexts, and community interests and dynamics (i.e. practice principles) are key to informing and motivating the behaviour changes necessary to improve global ocean literacy. In doing so, we hope that practitioners and researchers can employ this toolkit using participatory, as well as inter- and transdisciplinary approaches that will foster partnerships and sustain networks of ocean learning and literacy. Finally, whilst technology is an increasing driver of ocean literacy with many benefits (Martin et al. 2020 ), we emphasise that technology alone will not connect people to the ocean (Truong and Clayton 2020 ). The four drivers—education, cultural connections, technological developments, knowledge exchange and science-policy interconnections—will achieve most impact when applied together in diverse engaging and innovative activities, as outlined in the toolkit. Connecting people to the ocean via diverse experiential learning and activities is central to engendering broadscale marine stewardship and normalising the behaviours needed to expand ocean literacy at a global scale (Stoll-Kleemann 2019 ).

Understanding the human-ocean connection and contributing positively to discussions about the future of the ocean demands a level of ocean literacy (Fauville et al. 2018b ). Thus, an aim of improving global ocean literacy is to enhance societal understanding of ocean issues and capacity ‘to make a difference’ (Schubel and Schubel 2008 ). This paper highlights the growing movement (of research and practice) working to progress ocean literacy and identifies four key drivers through which this progression is likely to develop. These drivers – (1) education, (2) cultural connections, (3) technological developments, and (4) knowledge exchange and science-policy interconnections—will each play a key role in enhancing ocean literacy, but are likely to achieve a greater impact when combined with improved policy and political will (Stafford and Jones 2019 ). The implementation of policies that support the inclusion of ocean literacy curricula throughout formal educational pathways, formal processes for recognising, supporting and enhancing cultural connections to the ocean, as well as enhancing access to and uptake of technologies, are central for developing and supporting the ocean literacy movement in achieving sustained and positive behavioural change.

The toolkit highlights that ocean literacy activities can be led by a broad range of stakeholders and benefit a wide variety of communities, societies and environments. The growing global ocean literacy movement is evolving into a network that can support new approaches for engaging communities and society on ocean issues. In this way, ocean literacy is a ‘cross-cutting’ theme of the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development 2021–2030 that can contribute in a critical way to achieving the Decade’s Societal Outcomes. The toolkit is designed to support this movement and its evolution, to further global ocean literacy in another step towards Sustainable 2030.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/05/henderson-island-pitcairn-trash-plastic-pollution/

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-05-16/plastic-pollution-on-henderson-island-in-south-pacific/8527370

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/15/38-million-pieces-of-plastic-waste-found-on-uninhabited-south-pacific-island

Aburto JA, Gaymer CF, Haoa S, González L (2015) Management of marine resources through a local governance perspective: re-implementation of traditions for marine resource recovery on Easter Island. Ocean Coast Manag 116:108–115

Article   Google Scholar  

Ainsworth GB, Kenter JO, O’Connor S, Daunt F, Young JC (2019) A fulfilled human life: eliciting sense of place and cultural identity in two UK marine environments through the community voice method. EcosystServ 39:100992

Google Scholar  

Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, Airasian PW, Cruikshank KA, Mayer RE, Pintrich PR, Raths J, Wittrock MC (2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: a revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman Press, New York

Ashley M, Pahl S, Glegg G, Fletcher S (2019) A change of mind: Applying social and behavioural research methods to the assessment of the effectiveness of ocean literacy initiatives. Front Mar Sci 6:288

Bamberg S, Moser G (2007) Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behavior. J Environ Psychol 27:14–25

Bangay C, Blum N (2010) Education responses to climate change and quality: two parts of the same agenda? International J Educ Develop 30(4):359–368

Barnosky AD, Ehrlich PR, Hadly EA (2016) Avoiding collapse: grand challenges for science and society to solve by 2050. ELEMENTA Sci Anthr 4:000094

Barton CC (2019) Critical literacy in the post-truth media landscape. Policy Futures in Educ 17:1024–1036

Basile S (2016) Cool: how air conditioning changed everything. Fordham University Press, New York, NY

Bayliss-Brown, G. A. and C. Ní Cheallacháin (2016). Knowledge transfer with EU-funded marine science research: A viewpoint. Geophysical Research Abstracts 18 (EGU General Assembly 2016).

Beaumont NJ, Aanesen M, Austen MC, Borger T, Clark JR, Cole M, Hooper T, Lindeque PK, Pascoe C, Wyles KJ (2019) Global ecological, social and economic impacts of marine plastic. Mar Pollut Bull 142:189–195

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bennett NJ, Dearden P (2014) From measuring outcomes to providing inputs: governance, management and local development for more effective marine protected areas. Mar Policy 50:96–110

Benway HM, Lorenzoni L, White AE, Fiedler B, Levine NM, Nicholson DP, DeGrandpre MD, Sosik HM, Church MJ, O’Brien TD, Leinen M (2019) Ocean time series observations of changing marine ecosystems: an era of integration, synthesis and societal applications. Front Mar Sci 6:393

Berkes F, Folke C, Gadgil M (1994) Traditional ecological knowledge, biodiversity, resilience and sustainability. In: Perrings CA, Mäler KG, Folke C, Holling CS, Jansson BO (eds) Biodiversity Conservation. Kluwer, London

Bloom BS, Engelhart MD, Furst EJ, Hill WH, Krathwohl DR (1956) “Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals.” Handbook 1: congnitive domain. David McKay Company, New York

Blum N, Nazir J, Breiting S, Goh KC, Pedretti E (2013) Balancing the tensions and meeting the conceptual challenges of education for sustainable development and climate change. Environ Educ Res 19(2):206–217

Bonney R, Phillips TB, Ballard HL, Enck JW (2016) Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science? Public Underst Sci 25:1–15

Borja A, Santoro F, Snowcroft G, Fletcher S, Strosser P (2020) Editorial: connecting people to their oceans: issues and options for effective ocean literacy. Front Mar Sci 6:837

Botchwey ND, Johnson N, O’Connell LK, Kim AJ (2019) Including youth in the ladder of citizen participation. J American Plan Assoc 85(3):255–270

Bratman GN, Anderson CB, Berman MG, Cochran B, deVries S, Flanders J, Folke C, Frumkin H, Gross JJ, Hartig T, Kahn PH (2019) Nature and mental health: an ecosystem service perspective. Sci Adv 5(7):0903

Brennan C, Ashley M, Molloy O (2019) A systems dynamic approach to increasing ocean literacy. Front Mar Sci 6:360

Brennan RE (2018) Re-storying marine conservation: Integrating art and science to explore and articulate ideas, visions and expressions of marine space. Ocean Coast Manag 162:110–126

Brossard D, Lewenstein BV, Bonney R (2005) Scientific knowledge and attitude change: the impact of a citizen science project. International J SciEduc 27(9):1099–1121

Brown G, Raymond CM (2007) The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: toward mapping place attachment. ApplGeogr 27:89–111

Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100(14):8086–8091

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Catalano AS, Lyons-White J, Mills M, Knight AT (2019) Learning from published project failures in conservation. Biol Cons 238:108223

Cava, F., S. Schoedinger, C. Strang and P. Tuddenham (2005). "Science content and standards for ocena literacy: A report on ocean literacy." National Marine Eductors Association Report.

Cigliano JA, Meyer R, Ballard HL, Freitag A, Phillips TB, Wasser A (2015) Making marine and coastal citizen science matter. Ocean Coast Manag 115:77–87

Clarke B, Stocker L, Coffey B, Leith P, Harvey N, Baldwin C, Baxter T, Bruekers G, DaneseGalano C, Good M, Haward M, Hofmeester C, De Freitas DM, Mumford T, Nursey-Bray M, Kriwoken LK, Shaw J, Shaw J, Smith T, Thomsen D, Wood D, Cannard T (2013) Enhancing the knowledge-governance interface: coasts, cliamte and collaboration. Ocean Coast Manag 86(889):88–99

Clarke J, Flannery W (2019) The post-political nature of marine spatial planning and modalities for its re-politicisation. J Environ Policy Plan 22:170–183

Costa S, Caldeira R (2018) Bibliometric analysis of ocean literacy: an underrated term in the scientific literature. Mar Policy 87:149–157

Cox DT, Hudson HL, Shanahan DF, Fuller RA, Gaston KJ (2017) The rarity of direct experiences of nature in an urban environment. Landsc and Urb Plan 160:79–84

Crall AW, Jordan R, Holfelder K, Newman G, Graham J, Waller DM (2012) The impacts of an invasive species citizen science training program on participant attitudes, behaviour and science literacy. Public UnderstSci 22(6):745–764

Cvitanovic C, Hobday AJ (2018) Building optimism at the environmental science-policy-practice interface through the study of bright spots. Nat Commun 9:3466

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cvitanovic C, Hobday AJ, van Kerkhoff L, Wilson SK, Dobbs K, Marshall NA (2015) Improving knowledge exchange among scientists and decision-makers to facilitate the adaptive governance of marine resources: a review of knowledge and research needs. Ocean Coast Manag 112:25–35

Danielsen F, Pirhofer-Walzl K, Adrian TP, Kapijimpanga DR, Burgess ND, Jensen PM, Bonney R, Funder M, Landa A, Levermann N, Madsen J (2014) Linking public participation in scientific research to the indicators and needs of international environmental agreements. Conserv Lett 7(1):12–24

David-Chavez DM, Gavin MC (2018) A global assessment of Indigenous community engagement in climate research. Environ Res Lett 13(12):123005

Day JC (2017) Effective public participation is fundamental for marine conservation - lessons from a large-scale MPA. Coast Manag 45(6):470–486

de GusmãoPedrini A, Kremer LP, Brotto DS, da Silva VRF (2019) Emblematic coastal and marine environmental education projects in Brazil. In: Ghilardi-Lopes NP, Berchez FADS (eds) Coastal and Marine Environmental Education. Springer, Cham

Dierking LD, Falk JH, Rennie L, Anderson D, Ellenbogen K (2003) Policy statement of the ‘informal science education’ ad hoc committee. J Res Sci Teach 40:108–111

Duarte CM, Agusti S, Barbier E, Britten GL, Castilla JC, Gattuso J-P, Fulweiler RW, Hughes TP, Knowlton N, Lovelock CE, Lotze HK, Predragovic M, Poloczanska ES, Roberts C, Worm B (2020) Rebuilding marine life. Nature 580:39–51

Dublickas K, Ilich A (2017) Becoming an ocean advocate through experiential learning. Oceanography 30(4):10–11

Eagle L, Hamann M, Low DR (2016) The role of social marketing, marine turtles and sustainable tourism in reducing plastic pollution. Mar Pollut Bull 107:324–332

Ellwood ER, Crimmins TM, Miller-Rushing AJ (2017) Citizen science and conservation: recommendations for a rapidly moving field. Biol Cons 208:1–4

Evans MC, Cvitanovic C (2018) An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers. Palgrave Commun 4:88

Evans MC, Davilla F, Toomey A, Wyborn C (2017) Embrace complexity to improve conservation decision-making. Nat Ecol and Evol 1:1588

Fauville G, Payne DL, Marrero ME, Lantz-Andersson A, Crouch F (2018) Exemplary practices in marine science education: a resource for practitioners and researchers. Springer, Cham

Fauville G, Strang C, Cannady MA, Chen Y-F (2018) Development of the International Ocean Literacy Survey: measuring knowledge across the world. Environ Educ Res 25:1–26

Fauville G, Strang C, Cannady MA, Chen Y-F (2019) Development of the international ocean literacy survey: measuring knowledge across the world. Environ Educ Res 25(2):238–263

Fernández Otero RM, Bayliss-Brown GA, Papthanassiou M (2019) Ocean literacy and knowledge transfer synergies in support of a sustainable blue economy. Front Mar Sci 6:646

Fielding S, Copley JT, Mills RA (2019) Exploring our oceans: using the global classroom to develop ocean literacy. Front Mar Sci 6:340

Fletcher S, Potts JS, Heeps C, Pike K (2009) Public awareness of marine environmental issues in the UK. Mar Policy 33:370–375

Ford JD, Cameron L, Rubis J, Maillet M, Nakashima D, Wilcox AC, Pearce T (2016) Including Indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports. Nat Clim Chang 6:349–353

Ford JD, Stephenson E, Willox AC, Edge V, Farahbakhsh K, Furgal C, Harper S, Chatwood S, Mauro I, Pearce T, Austin S, Bunce A, Bussalleu A, Diaz J, Finner K, Gordon A, Huet C, Kitching K, Lardeau M-P, McDowell G, McDonald E, Nakoneczny L, Sherman M (2015) Community-based adaptation research in the Canadian Arctic. WIREs Clim Chang 7(2):175–191

Forrester TD, Baker M, Costello R, Kays R, Parsons AW, McShea WJ (2017) Creating advocates for mammal conservation through citizen science. Biol Cons 208:98–105

Friedlander A (2018) Marine conservation in Oceania: past, present, and future. Mar Pollut Bull 135:139–149

Fulton EA, Smith AD, Smith DC, van Putten EI (2011) Human behaviour: the key source of uncertainty in fisheries management. Fish Fish 12(1):2–17

Gal T (2017) An ecological model of child and youth participation. Child and Youth Serv Rev 79:57–64

Garrett JK, White MP, Huang Y, Ng S, Hui Z, Leung C, Tse LA, Fung F, Elliott LR, Depledge MH, Wong MCS (2019) Urban blue space and health and wellbeing in Hong Kong: results from a survey of older adults. Health Place 55:100–110

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gascon M, Zijlema W, Vert C, White MP, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ (2017) Outdoor blue spaces, human health and well-being: a systematic review of quantitative studies. Int J Hyg Environ Health 220:1207–1221

Gelcich S, Buckley P, Pinnegar JK, Chilvers J, Lorenzoni I, Terry G, Guerrero AM, Castilla JC, Valedebenito A, Duarte CM (2014) Public awareness, concerns, and priorities about anthropogenic impacts on marine environments. ProcNatlAcadSci 111(42):15042–15047

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Gibbs SE, Salgado Kent CP, Slat B, Morales D, Fouda L, Reisser J (2019) Cetacean sightings within the great Pacific Garbage Patch. Mar Pollut Bull 49:2021–2027

Gough A (2017) Educating for the marine environment: challenges for schools and scientists. Mar Pollut Bull 124(2):633–638

Green D (2006) “How might climate change affect island culture in the Torres Strait?” CSIRO Mar and Atmos Res CSIRO 011:14

GSMA (2018). "The mobile economy 2018." GSM Association.

Guess A, Nagler J, Tucker J (2019) Less than you think: prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemintation on Facebook. Sci Adv 5(1):4586

Gurney GG, Blythe J, Adams H, Adger N, Curnock M, Faulkner L, James T, Marshall N (2017) Refefining community based on place attachment in a connected world. PNAS 114(38):10077–10082

Hartley BL, Thompson RC, Paul S (2015) Marine litter education boosts children’s understanding and self-reported actions. Mar Pollut Bull 90:209–217

Hecker, S., M. Luckas, M. Brandt, H. Kikillus, I. Marenbach, B. Schiele, A. Sieber, A. J. H. van Vliet, U. Walz and W. Wende (2018) "Stories can change the world: citizen communication in practice" In: Citizen science Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy. Eds S. Hecker, M. Haklay, A. Bowser, Z. Makuch, J. Vogel, A. Bonn, London, UCL Press

Hobart HJ (2019) When we dance the ocean, does it hear us? J Trans American Stud 10:1

Hoegh-Guldberg O, Bruno JF (2010) The impact of climate change on the world’s marine ecosystems. Science 328:1523–1528

Hornsey M, Fielding KS (2016) A cautionary note about messages of hope: focusing on progress in reducing carbon emissions weakens mitigation motivation. Global Environ Chang 39:26–34

Hyder K, Townhill B, Anderson LG, Delany J, Pinnegar JK (2015) Can citizen science contribute to the evidence-base that underpins marine policy? Mar Policy 59:112–120

Illingworth, S. (2017). "Delivering effective science communication: Advice from a science communicator." Seminars in Cell and Development Biology.

IPCC (2019). "Special report on the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate." IPCC Working Group II / IPCC Secretariat: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/2011/SROCC_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf .

Johnson M, Hannah FC, Acton L, Popovici R, Karanth KK, Weinthal E (2014) Network environmentalism: citizen scientists as agents for environmentla advocacy. Global Environ Chang 29:235–245

Jose S, Patrick PG, Moseley C (2017) Experiential learning theory: the importance of outdoor classrooms in environmental education. International J SciEduc, Part B 7(3):269–284

Jouffray J-B, Blaskiak R, Norström AV, Österblom H, Nyström M (2020) The blue acceleration: the trajectory of human expansion into the ocean. One Earth 2(1):43–54

Kelly R, Fleming A, Pecl GT (2018) Social licence for marine conservation science. Front Mar Sci 5:414

Kelly R, Fleming A, Pecl GT, Richter A, Bonn A (2019) Social licence through citizen science: a tool for marine conservation. Ecol and Soc 24(1):16

Kelly, R., A. Fleming, G. T. Pecl, J. von Gönner and A. Bonn (2020). Citizen science and marine conservation: A global review. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.

Kikiloi K, Friedlander AM, Wilhelm A, Lewis Na, Quiocho K, Āila W, Kaho’ohalahala S (2017) Papahānaumokuākea: integrating culture in the design and management of one of the world’s largest marine protected areas. Coast Manag 45(6):436–451

Komugabe-Dixson AF, De Ville NSE, Trundle A, McEvoy D (2019) Environmental change, urbanisation and socio-ecological resilience in the Pacific: community narratives from Port Vila, Vanuata. EcosystServ 39:100973

Koomen MH, Rodriguez E, Hoffman A, Petersen C, Oberhauser K (2018) Authentic science with citizen science and student-driven science fair projects. SciEduc 102(3):593–644

Kopke K, Black J, Dozier A (2019) Stepping out of the ivory tower for ocean literacy. Front Mar Sci 6:60

Kothari A (2008) Protected areas and people: the future of the past. Park International J Prot Area Manag 17(2):23–34

Lahoz-Monfort JL, Chadès I, Davies A, Fegraus E, Game E, Guillera-Arroita G, Harcourt R, Rhodes J, Roe P, Rogers A, Ward A, Watson DM, Watson JEM, Wintle BA, Joppa L (2019) A call for international leadership and coordination to realize the potential of conservation technology. Bioscience 69:823–832

Laranjo, L., A. Lau, B. Oldenburg, E. Gabarron, A. O’Neill, S. Cha and S. Coiera (2015). "mHealth technologies for chronic disease prevention and management: An evidence review brokered by the Sax Institute for Healthdirect Australia." www.saxinstitute.org.au .

Lavers JL, Bond AL (2017) Exceptional and rapid accumulation of anthropogenic debris on one of the world’s most remote and pristine islands. PNAS 114(23):6052–6055

Lazarow N, Miller ML, Blackwell B (2008) The value of recreational surfing to society. Tour Mar Environ 5:145–158

Lee HS, Liu SY, Yeh T-K (2019) Marine education through cooperation: a case study of opportunity in a remote school in taiwan exemplary practices in marine science education–a resource for practitioners and researchers. In: Fauville G, Payne DL, Marrero ME, Lantz-Andersson A, Crouch F (eds) International Publishing. Springer, Cham

Lee JJ, Ceyhan P, Jordan-Cooley W, Sung W (2013) GREENIFY: A Real-World Action Game for Climate Change Education. Simulation & Gaming 44(2–3):349–365

Leicht A, Heiss J, Byun WJ (2018) Issues and trends in education for sustainable development. UNESCO Publishing, France

Lewandowsky S, Ecker UKH, Cook J (2017) Beyond misinformation: understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. J Appl Res Memory Cog 6:353–369

Li WC, Tse HF, Fok L (2016) Plastic waste in the marine environment: a review of sources, occurrence and effects. Sci Total Environ 566:333–349

Locock, K. E. S., J. Deane, E. Kosior, H. Prabaharan, M. Skidmore and O. E. Hutt (2017). "The recycled plastics market: Global analysis and trends." CSIRO Australia.

Martin L, White MP, Hunt A, Richardson M, Pahl S, Burt J (2020) Nature contact, nature connectedness and assocations with health, wellbing and pro-environmental behaviours. J Environ Psychol 68:101389

Martin VY, Christidis L, Pecl GT (2016) Public interest in marine citizen science: is there potential for growth? Bioscience 66:683–692

McAfee D, Doubleday ZA, Geiger N, Connell SD (2019) Everyone loves a success story: optimism inspires conservation engagement. Bioscience 69(4):274–281

McCauley V, McHugh P, Davison K, Domegan C (2019) Collective intelligence for advancing ocean literacy. Environ Educ Res 25(2):280–291

McKinley E, Acott T, Stojanovic T (2019) Socio-cultural dimensions of marine spatial planning. In: Zaucha J, Gee K (eds) Maritime Spatial Planning. Palgrave Macmilla, Cham

McKinley E, Fletcher S (2010) Individual responsibility for the oceans? an evaluation of marine citizenship by UK marine practitioners. Ocean Coast Manag 56:379–384

McKinley E, Fletcher S (2012) Improving marine environmental health through marine citizenship: a call for debate. Mar Policy 36:839–843

McPherson KL, Wright T, Tyedmers PH (2018) Examining the nova scotia science curriculum for international ocean literacy principle inclusion. International J Learn, Teach and Educ Rese 17:11

Meadow AM, Ferguson DB, Guido Z, Horangic A, Owen G, Wall T (2015) Moving toward the deliberative coproduction of climate science knowledge. Weather, Clim and Soc 7:2

Medema W, Meyer I, Adamoski J, Wals AEJ, Chew C (2019) The potential of serious games to solve water problems: Editorial to the special issue on game-based approaches to sustainable water governance. Water 11(12):2562

Milhailidis P, Viotty S (2017) Spreadable spectacle in digital culture: civic expression, fake news, and the role of media literacies in “post-fact” society. Am BehavSci 61:441–454

Mogias A, Boubonari T, Realdon G, Previati M, Mokos M, Koulouri P, Cheimonopoulou MT (2019) Evaluating ocean literacy of elementary school students: preliminary results of a cross-cultural study in the Mediterranean Region. Front Mar Sci 6:396

Moltmann T, Zhang HM, Turton JD, Nolan G, Gouldmann CC, Griesbauer L, Willis Z, Muñiz Piniella Á, Charpentier E, Poli P, Burger EF (2019) A Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) delivered through enhanced collaboration across regions, communities, and new technologies. Front Mar Sci 6:291

Montagnier, P. and A. Wirthmann (2011). "Digital divide: From computer access to online activities–a micro data analysis."

Moreton SG, Arena A, Hornsey M, Crimston C, Tiliopolos N (2019) Elevating nature: morla elevation increases feelings of connectedness to nature. J Environ Psychol 65:101332

Mustonen T (2019) Diving deeper with Indigenous knowledge: oceans and original peoples. J Ocean Technol 14:126–127

NASEM (2018) Learning through citizen science: enhancing opportunities by design. The National Academies Press, Washington DC

Nash KL, et al (2021) Developing achievable alternate futures for key challenges during the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development. Rev Fish Biol Fish

Nichols WJ (2014) Blue mind: the surprising science that shows how being near, in, on or under water can make you happier, healthier, more connected, and better at what you do. Little, Brown and Company, New York, NY

NOAA (2019). "Navigating change." Papahānaumokuakea Marine National Monument.

Norström AV, Cvitanovic C, Österblom H (2020) Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat Sustain 3:182–190

Nursey-Bray M, Palmer R, Pecl GT (2018) Spot, log, map: assessing a marine virtual citizen science program against reed’s best practice for stakeholder participation in environmental management. Ocean Coast Manag 15:1–9

Owens KA (2018) Using experiential marine debris education to make an impact: collecting debris, informing policy makers, and influencing students. Mar Pollut Bull 127:804–810

Pahl S, Wyles KJ, Thompson RC (2017) Channelling passion for the ocean towards plastic pollution. Nat Human Behav 1(697):699

Parsons ECM (2016) “Advocacy” and “Activism” are not dirty words - how activists can better help conservation scientists. Front Mar Sci 3:229

Pecl GT, Araújo MB, Bell JD, Blanchard J, Bonebrake TC, Chen I-C, Clark TD, Colwell RK, Danielsen F, Evangård B, Falconi L, Ferrier S, Frusher S, Garcia RA, Griffis RB, Hobday AJ, Janion-Scheepers C, Jarzyna MA, Jennings S, Lenoir J, Linnetved HI, Martin VY, McCormack PC, McDonald J, Mitchell NJ, Mustonen T, Pandolfi JM, Pettorelli N, Popova EE, Robinson SA, Scheffers BR, Shaw JD, Sorte CJB, Strugnell JM, Sunday JM, Tuanmu M-N, Vergés A, Villanueva C, Wernberg T, Wapstra E, Williams SE (2017) Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355(1389):1398

Pecl GT, Stuart-Smith J, Walsh P, Bray D, Brians M, Burgess M, Frusher S, Gledhill D, George O, Jackson G, Keane J, Martin VY, Nursey-Bray M, Pender A, Robinson L, Rowling K, Sheaves M, Moltschaniwskyj NA (2019) Redmap Australia: challenges and successes with a large-scale citizen science-based approach to ecological monitoring and community engagement on climate change. Front Mar Sci 6:349

Pendleton, L., K. Evans and M. Visbeck (2020). We need a global movement to transform ocean science for a better world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Pergams, O. R. W. and P. A. Zaradic (2008). Evidence for a fundamental and pervasive shift away from nature-based recreation. Proceedings of the National Academy of the United States of America 105:2295-2300

PewOceansCommission (2003) “America’s living oceans: charting a course for sea change A report to the nation”. Pew Oceans Commission Arlington, VA, USA

Pittman SJ, Rodwell LD, Shellock RJ, Williams M, Attrill MJ, Bedford J, Curry K, Fletcher S, Gall SC, Lowther J, McQuatters-Gollop A, Moseley KL, Rees SE (2019) Marine parks for coastal cities: a concept for enhanced community well-being, prosperity, and sustainable city living. Mar Policy 103:160–171

Poloczanska ES, Burrows M, Brown CJ, GarcíaMolinos J, Halpern BS, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Kappel CV, Moore PJ, Richardson AJ, Schoeman D, Sydeman WJ (2016) Responses of marine organisms to climate change across oceans. Front Mar Sci 3:62

Poushter J (2016) Smartphone ownership and internet usage continues to climb in emerging economies. Pew Research Center Global Attitudes Project. 202.419.4372

Roos, P. (2013). "Indigenous knowledge and climate change: the Wathaurong and Gadubanud narrative of the Great Ocean Road region" IFLA 2013: Shared wisdom in an age of change: Proceedings for the International Federation of Landscape Architects 50th World Congress, Auckland NZ

Rousseau, Y., R. A. Watson, J. Blanchard and E. A. Fulton (2019). "Evolution of global maine fishing fleets and the response of fished resources." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Roy HE, Pocock MJO, Preston CD, Roy DB, Savage J, Tweedle JC, Robinson LD (2012) “Understanding citizen science & environmental monitoring”. NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and Natural History Museum, Final report on behalf of UK-EOF

Roy M, Shemdoe R, Hulme D, Mwageni N, Gough A (2018) Climate change and declining levels of green structures: life in informal settlements of DAR es Salaam, Tanzania. LandscUrb Plan 180:282–293

Ryfield, F., D. Cabana, J. Brannigan and T. Crowe (2019). "Conceptualising ‘sense of place’ in cultural ecosystem services: A framework for interdisciplinary research." Ecosystem Services 36 .

Sampang AG (2005) Ethnoicthyology and conservation practices of the Calamian Tagbanwa in CoronIslan, Palawan, Philippines. University of Philippines Los Banos, Masters

Santoro, F., S. Santin, G. Scowcroft, G. Fauville and P. Tuddenham (2017). "Ocean literacy for all: A toolkit." IOC Manuals and Guides 80 (IOC/UNESCO & UNESCO Venice Office, Paris).

Scheufele DA, Krause NM (2019) Science audiences, misinformation and fake news. PNAS 116:7662–7669

Schmidt KM, Kelter P (2017) Science fairs: a qualitative study of their impact on student science inquiry learning and attitudes towards STEM. SciEduc 25(2):126–132

Schoedinger S, Cava F, Strang C, Tuddenham P (2005) Ocean literacy through science standards. Oceans 1(3):736–740

Schoedinger, S., L. Uyen Tran and L. Whitley (2010). "From the principles to the scope and sequence: A brief history of the ocean literacy campaign." NMEA Special Report #3.

Schubel, J. R. and K. A. Schubel (2008). "From ocean issues to solutions: The role of public ocean literacy." OCEANS.

Schuldt JP, McComas KA, Byrne SE (2016) Communicating about ocean health: theoretical and practical considerations. Philos Trans Royal Soc B: BiolSci 371:201450214

Serra-Gonçalves C, Lavers JL, Bond AL (2019) Global review of beach debris monitoring and future recommendations. Environ SciTechnol 53(21):12158–12167

Shirk, J. and R. Bonney (2015). "Informing a framework for citizen science within the US Fish and Wildlife Service." An independent science review conducted for the Consensus Building Institute on behalf of the US Institute.

Silverstone, R. (2017) "Media, technology and everyday life in Europe: From information to communication." Routledge; 1 edition (June 20, 2005).

Sloan J, Chand K (2016) An analysis of property rights in the Fijian goligoli. Mar Policy 72:76–81

Soares, M. (1998). "The ocean: Our future." Cambridge University Press.

Song Z, Daryanto A, Soopramanien D (2019) Place attachment, trust and mobility: three-way interaction effect on urban residents’ environmental citizenschip behaviour. J Bus Res 105:165–177

Stafford R, Jones PJS (2019) Ocean plastic pollution: a convenient but distracting truth? Mar Policy 103:187–191

Stewart BD, Howarth LM, Wood H, Whiteside K, Carney W, Crimmins E, O’Leary BC, Hawkins JP, Roberts C (2020) Marine conservation begins at home: how a local community and protection of a small bay sent waves of change around the UK and beyond. Front in Mar Sci 7:76

Stoll-Kleemann S (2019) Feasible options for behaviour change toward more effective ocean literacy: a systematic review. Front in Mar Sci 6:273

TebrakunnaCountry, Lee E (2019). "‘Reset the realtionship’: Decolonising government to increase Indigenous benefit." Cultural Geographies 1–20

Thornton TF, MaciejewskiScheer A (2012) Collaborative engagement of local and traditional knowledge and science in marine environments: a review. Ecol Soc 17(3):8

Truong MA, Clayton S (2020) Technologically transformed experiences of nature: a challenge for environmental conservation? Biol Cons 244:108532

UN (2018a). "Revised Roadmap for the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development." IOC. Executive Council, 51st, Paris, 2018 Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission.

UN (2018) “The world’s cities in 2018 - data booklet (ST/ESA/ SER.A/417)”. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division

UN (2019a). "Digital economy report 2019. Value creation and capture: Implications for developing countries."

UN (2019b). " https://www.oceandecade.org/ ."

UNESCO (2006). "Literacy for life. EFA Global Monitoring report."

UNESCO (2009). "Investing in Cultural Diversity (Vol 2). Riviére, F. ed.".

van der Mheen M, Pattiaratchi C, van Sebille E (2019) Role of Indian Ocean dynamics on accumulation of buoyant debris. J Geophy Res: Oceans 124:2571–2590

van der Molen F, Puente-Rodriguez D, Swart AA, van der Windt HJ (2015) The co-production of knowledge and policy in coastal governance: integrating mussel fisheries and nature restoration. Ocean Coast Manag 109:49–60

van Putten EI, Plagányi ÉE, Booth K, Cvitanovic C, Kelly R, Punt AE, Richards SA (2018) A framework for incorporating sense of place into the management of marine systems. Ecol and Soc 23(4):4

Villarrubia-Gómez P, Cornell SE, Fabres J (2018) Marine plastic pollution as a planetary boundary threat - the drifting piece in the sustainability puzzle. Mar Policy 96:213–220

Vince J, Hardesty BD (2016) Plastic pollution challenges in marine and coastal environments: from local to global governance. Restor Ecol 25(1):123–128

Vince J, Hardesty BD (2019) Governance solutions to the tragedy of the commons that marine plastics have become. Front Mar Sci 5:214

Vromen A, Colin P (2010) Everday youth participation? contrasting views from Australian policymakers and young people. Young 18(1):97–112

Walsh JC, Dicks LV, Raymond CM, Sutherland WJ (2019) A typology of barriers and enablers of scientific evidence use in conservation practice. J Environ Manag 250:109481

Wiener CS, Manset G, Lemus JD (2016) Ocean use in Hawaii as a predictor of marine conservation interests, beliefs, and a willingness to participate: an exploratory study. J Environ Stud Sci 6:712–723

Wu JS, Lee JJ (2015) Climate change games as tools for education and engagement. Nat Clim Chang 5:413–418

Wulff A, Johannesson K (2019) bring the ocean to the classroom—introducing experimental studies to teachers with fair or no science knowledge exemplary practices in marine science education: a resource for practitioners and researchers. In: Fauville G, Payne DL, Marrero ME, Lantz-Andersson A, Crouch F (eds) International Publishing. Springer, Cham

Young JC, Jordan A, Searle KR, Butler A, Chapman DS, Simmons P, Watt AD (2013) Does stakeholder involvement really benefit biodiversity conservation? Biol Cons 158:359–370

Zardo P, Barnett AG, Suzor N, Cahill T (2018) Does engagement predict research use? an analysis of the conversation annual survey 2016. PLoS ONE 13(2):e0192290

Zurba M, Berkes F (2014) Caring for country through participation art: creating a boundary object for communcating Indigenous knowledge and values. Local Environ 19(8):821–836

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is part of the Future Seas project (futureseas2030.org), hosted by the Centre for Marine Socioecology at the University of Tasmania. This initiative delivers a series of journal articles addressing key challenges for the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development 2021–2030. The general concepts and methods applied in many of these papers were developed in large collaborative workshops involving more participants than listed as co-authors here, who we thank for their collective input. We acknowledge and pay respect to the traditional owners and custodians of sea country all around the world and recognise their collective wisdom and knowledge of our oceans and coasts. Funding for Future Seas was provided by the Centre for Marine Socioecology, IMAS, CSIRO, MENZIES and the College of Arts, Law and Education, and the College of Science and Engineering at UTAS, and Snowchange from Finland. We acknowledge support from a Research Enhancement Program grant from the DVCR Office at UTAS. A.M. acknowledges support from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes (CE170100023). GP was supported by An Australian Research Council Future Fellowship.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, 7005, Australia

Rachel Kelly, Karen Alexander, Stuart Corney, Coco Cullen-Knox, Christopher Cvitanovic, Liam Fullbrook, Sierra Ison, Catriona Macleod, Michael Murunga, Kirsty L. Nash & Gretta T. Pecl

CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Castray Esplanade, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia

Karen Evans & Sierra Ison

Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia

Karen Alexander, Stuart Corney, Scott Ling, Catriona Macleod, Amelie Meyer, Michael Murunga, Kirsty L. Nash, Michael Oellermann & Gretta T. Pecl

College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, 7005, Australia

Silvana Bettiol

The Media School, University of Tasmania, Battery Point, Salamanca Square, TAS, 7004, Australia

Coco Cullen-Knox

Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia

Christopher Cvitanovic

School of Technology, Environments and Design, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, 7005, Australia

Kristy de Salas & Carolina Garcia

Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania Newnham, Hobart, TAS, 7248, Australia

Gholam Reza Emad

School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, 7005, Australia

Liam Fullbrook

College of Health, Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand

Linda Murray

School of Psychological Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, 7005, Australia

Kimberley Norris & Jennifer Scott

Aquatic Systems Biology Unit, Technical University of Munich, Freising, Germany

Michael Oellermann

Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston, TAS, 7050, Australia

Jonathan S. Stark

School of Humanities, University of Tasmania, Launceston, TAS, 7250, Australia

Graham Wood

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachel Kelly .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (21 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (4943 kb), rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kelly, R., Evans, K., Alexander, K. et al. Connecting to the oceans: supporting ocean literacy and public engagement. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 32 , 123–143 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-020-09625-9

Download citation

Received : 24 April 2020

Accepted : 23 October 2020

Published : 10 February 2021

Issue Date : March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-020-09625-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Communication
• Future seas
• Interdisciplinary
• Sustainable 2030
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The essay writers who will write an essay for me have been in this domain for years and know the consequences that you will face if the draft is found to have plagiarism. Thus, they take notes and then put the information in their own words for the draft. To be double sure about this entire thing, your final draft is being analyzed through anti-plagiarism software, Turnitin. If any sign of plagiarism is detected, immediately the changes will be made. You can get the Turnitin report from the writer on request along with the final deliverable.

We use cookies. By browsing the site, you agree to it. Read more »

How can I be sure you will write my paper, and it is not a scam?

Eloise Braun

Finished Papers

• Dissertations
• Business Plans
• PowerPoint Presentations
• Editing and Proofreading
• Annotated Bibliography
• Book Review/Movie Review
• Reflective Paper
• Company/Industry Analysis
• Article Analysis
• Custom Writing Service
• Assignment Help
• Write My Essay
• Paper Writing Help
• Write Papers For Me
• College Paper Writing Service

• Our process

How It Works

What is a good essay writing service?

Oddly enough, but many people still have not come across a quality service. A large number of users fall for deceivers who take their money without doing their job. And some still fulfill the agreements, but very badly.

A good essay writing service should first of all provide guarantees:

• confidentiality of personal information;
• for the terms of work;
• for the timely transfer of the text to the customer;
• for the previously agreed amount of money.

The company must have a polite support service that will competently advise the client, answer all questions and support until the end of the cooperation. Also, the team must get out of conflict situations correctly.

It is necessary to have several payment methods on the site to make it easier for the client to transfer money.

And of course, only highly qualified writers with a philological education should be present in the team, who will not make spelling and punctuation errors in the text, checking all the information and not stealing it from extraneous sites.

Order Number

You may be worried that your teacher will know that you took an expert's assistance to write my essay for me, but we assure you that nothing like that will happen with our write essay service. Taking assistance to write from PenMyPaper is both safe and private. We respect your privacy and thus do not ask for credentials like your name, college, location, or your phone number. To pay for the essay writing, you can either use your debit or credit cards to pay via PayPal or use your wallet balance from our website. All we would need is your card details and your email-id. This is our responsibility that your information will be kept all safe. This is what makes our service the best essay writing service to write with.

Amount to be Paid

I ordered a paper with a 3-day deadline. They delivered it prior to the agreed time. Offered free alterations and asked if I want them to fix something. However, everything looked perfect to me.

Finished Papers

Accuracy and promptness are what you will get from our writers if you write with us. They will simply not ask you to pay but also retrieve the minute details of the entire draft and then only will ‘write an essay for me’. You can be in constant touch with us through the online customer chat on our essay writing website while we write for you.

Finished Papers

Calculate the price

Minimum Price

Can you write my essay fast?

Our company has been among the leaders for a long time, therefore, it modernizes its services every day. This applies to all points of cooperation, but we pay special attention to the speed of writing an essay.

Of course, our specialists who have extensive experience can write the text quickly without losing quality. The minimum lead time is three hours. During this time, the author will find the necessary information, competently divide the text into several parts so that it is easy to read and removes unnecessary things. We do not accept those customers who ask to do the work in half an hour or an hour just because we care about our reputation and clients, so we want your essay to be the best. Without the necessary preparation time, specialists will not be able to achieve an excellent result, and the user will remain dissatisfied. For the longest time, we write scientific papers that require exploratory research. This type of work takes up to fourteen days.

We will consider any offers from customers and advise the ideal option, with the help of which we will competently organize the work and get the final result even better than we expected.

I work with the same writer every time. He knows my preferences and always delivers as promised. It’s like having a 24/7 tutor who is willing to help you no matter what. My grades improved thanks to him. That’s the story.

Frequently Asked Questions

Finished Papers

Adam Dobrinich

Original drafts, testimonials.

Niamh Chamberlain

The experts well detail out the effect relationship between the two given subjects and underline the importance of such a relationship in your writing. Our cheap essay writer service is a lot helpful in making such a write-up a brilliant one.

Useful Links

• Request a call back
• Write For Us

Do my essay with us and meet all your requirements.

We give maximum priority to customer satisfaction and thus, we are completely dedicated to catering to your requirements related to the essay. The given topic can be effectively unfolded by our experts but at the same time, you may have some exclusive things to be included in your writing too. Keeping that in mind, we take both your ideas and our data together to make a brilliant draft for you, which is sure to get you good grades.

offers three types of essay writers: the best available writer aka. standard, a top-level writer, and a premium essay expert. Every class, or type, of an essay writer has its own pros and cons. Depending on the difficulty of your assignment and the deadline, you can choose the desired type of writer to fit in your schedule and budget. We guarantee that every writer will be a subject-matter expert with proper writing skills and background knowledge across all high school, college, and university subjects. Also, we don’t work with undergraduates or dropouts, focusing more on Bachelor, Master, and Doctoral level writers (yes, we offer writers with Ph.D. degrees!)

First, you have to sign up, and then follow a simple 10-minute order process. In case you have any trouble signing up or completing the order, reach out to our 24/7 support team and they will resolve your concerns effectively.

Pricing depends on the type of task you wish to be completed, the number of pages, and the due date. The longer the due date you put in, the bigger discount you get!

Customer Reviews

• Paraphrasing
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• Scholarship Essay
• Speech Presentation
• Statistics Project
• Thesis Proposal

Perfect Essay

Customer Reviews

Paper Writing Service Price Estimation

Article sample.

• bee movie script
• hills like white elephants
• rosewood movie
• albert bandura
• young goodman brown

Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Our support team will be more than willing to assist you.

Niamh Chamberlain

Customer Reviews

Andre Cardoso

Know Us Better

• Knowledge Base
• Referencing Styles
• Know Our Consultance
• Revision and Refund Policy
• Terms Of Use

What is a good essay writing service?

Oddly enough, but many people still have not come across a quality service. A large number of users fall for deceivers who take their money without doing their job. And some still fulfill the agreements, but very badly.

A good essay writing service should first of all provide guarantees:

• confidentiality of personal information;
• for the terms of work;
• for the timely transfer of the text to the customer;
• for the previously agreed amount of money.

The company must have a polite support service that will competently advise the client, answer all questions and support until the end of the cooperation. Also, the team must get out of conflict situations correctly.

It is necessary to have several payment methods on the site to make it easier for the client to transfer money.

And of course, only highly qualified writers with a philological education should be present in the team, who will not make spelling and punctuation errors in the text, checking all the information and not stealing it from extraneous sites.

Laura V. Svendsen

Earl M. Kinkade

Dr.Jeffrey (PhD)

Writing my essay with the top-notch writers!

The writers you are supposed to hire for your cheap essay writer service are accomplished writers. First of all, all of them are highly skilled professionals and have higher academic degrees like Masters and PhDs. Secondly, all the writers have work experience of more than 5 years in this domain of academic writing. They are responsible for

• Omitting any sign of plagiarism
• Formatting the draft
• Delivering order before the allocated deadline

Customer Reviews

Will You Write Me an Essay?

Students turn to us not only with the request, "Please, write my essay for me." From the moment we hear your call, homework is no longer an issue. You can count on our instant assistance with all essay writing stages. Just to let you know, our essay writers do all the work related to writing, starting with researching a topic and ending with formatting and editing the completed paper. We can help you choose the right topic, do in-depth research, choose the best up-to-date sources, and finally compose a brilliant piece to your instructions. Choose the formatting style for your paper (MLA, APA, Chicago/Turabian, or Harvard), and we will make all of your footnotes, running heads, and quotations shine.

Our professional essay writer can help you with any type of assignment, whether it is an essay, research paper, term paper, biography, dissertation, review, course work, or any other kind of writing. Besides, there is an option to get help with your homework assignments. We help complete tasks on Biology, Chemistry, Engineering, Geography, Maths, Physics, and other disciplines. Our authors produce all types of papers for all degree levels.

Finished Papers

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.