Fisher’s central argument, similar to Francisco’s, is that the government’s case relies too heavily on the threats of specific speech (pro-China, anti-America) on national security, rather than on creating data security protections.
“I don’t dispute for one second that data security is a very important thing and if Congress, in this very law, regulated data security in other ways with the data brokers that’s perfectly permissible, but the question before you today was narrower, the question is this law before you sustainable on security grounds? and that answer has to be no,” Fisher tells the court.
