Can the President of the United States legally discredit or promote mass media organizations? Whereas freedom of the press and freedom of speech are both inalienable rights in our country, the same might not be said of every citizen--particularly members of the military per 10 U.S. Code § 888: "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct." (See the answer to Is there a law that requires allegiance or respect to the Office of the President of the United States?) Such measures have been put in place to maintain military cohesiveness. But the same does not apply to the general public and the media. Now we are all well aware of how presidential administrations in the past have fought a very public political battle of words with the media in the United States. The media is a very powerful entity with the power to sway public opinion--not just inform! To the public, these political battles between the media and the President may seem divisive--but to be fair, the media does seem to take political sides, downplaying one party and promoting another. I'm not talking about an opposing political candidate taking swipes at the President and using the media as a vehicle--something for which I understand we already have political campaign regulations in place. No, I'm talking about the perfectly plausible case in which a media outlet itself (without outright endorsement from a specific political party or candidate) makes hostile reporting against the President a constant theme. Please, I'm not pointing fingers--I'm just pointing out that it can and has happened in order to set up the basis of my question. With that in mind, and for our education, how is the President--as Commander In Chief of our armed forces--legally permitted to handle disagreements with the media? Is s/he also in fact fully entitled to defensively or preemptively discredit or promote media organizations publicly, despite holding office? I am not asking for opinions on whether it's been done the right way or the wrong way by any present or previous administration. I am not at this time pushing for, nor asking for anyone to get on a bandwagon to push for, any changes in policy. My question is also NOT seeking to incite political debate. I just want to deal with the facts of what is legal today in terms of White House communications. I want to understand what legally entitles a President to discredit or promote media organizations as s/he sees fit. And maybe the answer to that is simply that someone in the office of President keeps his/her full rights to free speech and free press as a citizen. If so, then just please confirm and point out to me how that's protected, whether by a Constitutional amendment, some simple article in the Bill of Rights, or whatever. That's all! Thanks.
The answer is as simple as the fact that the President of the US is a civilian and citizen, and keeps his/her full rights to free speech and free press as guaranteed under the First Amendment. The military necessity exception is a somewhat surprising exception to the general proposition that you have a protected right to express any viewpoint whatsoever, but also is not relevant to POTUS who is not subject to UCMJ. Just as a plain old citizen has the unfettered right to express ridiculous and fundamentally dangerous ideas, news media have the unfettered right to express ridiculous and fundamentally dangerous ideas, as do politicians including POTUS. Plain old citizens can be "punished" for their views by shunning, news media can be "punished" by customers unsubscribing, and politicians can be "punished" for their views by being voted out of office, or not being voted in. That is the only legal limit on expression of viewpoint possible in the US.
Perhaps. The relevant law is assembled into notes on 3 USC 102. The original act of 1963 defines President-elect in this manner: (c) The terms 'President-elect' and 'Vice-President-elect' as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. There is no specific statutory provision directing the Administrator of the GSA to ascertain who is that President-Elect. The administration is apparently taking a position similar to that taken by the Clinton administration, that states determine who has been elected, and the states have not officially determined who has been elected: nor has a candidate conceded. If a court orders the Administrator to make the ascertainment, I expect that the administration would appeal the ruling up to the Supreme Court. This letter, addressed to the Administrator, gives the legal rationale.
There is no US law licensing journalists or people who report the news, or requiring such people to identify themselves by legal name. Nor can there be under the US First Amendment. There is also no law requiring a person to identify himself or herself by legal name online. Some sites, including Wikipedia, have policies against having multiple undisclosed user IDs for the same person, but that is a matter of the site's own rules, not a matter of law. Any US law mandating this would again run afoul of the First Amendment to the US Federal Constitution. This article on Anonymous Speech reviews and cites a number of US Supreme court cases on the subject of anonymity, mostly in political contexts. This article from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) discusses the same general subject. Both articles mention that The Federalist (analyzing and advocating for the then-unratified US Constitution) was originally published under the pseudonym "Publis". The EFF Article "Court Recognizes First Amendment Right to Anonymity Even After Speakers Lose Lawsuits" discusses the 6th Circuit case of Signature Management Team, LLC v. John Doe in which it was held that an anonymous blogger who lost a copyright infringement suit could nonetheless remain anonymous. This page apparently from a Harvard course, lists and briefly describes several cases on the same subject. In Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005) an elected official sued an online poster for defamation, and sought to force the ISP involved to disclose the poster's identity. The Delaware Supreme Court ruled against this, setting a standard offering greater protection for such anonymous online speech than previous cases had. This answer is very US-centric. Laws in other countries are different. The OP has not specified a country or jurisdiction.
So it's not that SCOTUS is declining to review the matter on Constitutional Grounds but that it's declining to rule because 1.) It's a military matter 2.) It's under review by congress. SCOTUS is basically saying that, of the three branches, they are the least equipped to deal with military policy and when a better equipped branch is reviewing the matter. SCOTUS doesn't want to dictate to Congress how to change the rules when Congress is in the process of changing the rules itself... but they can say &quot;Hey, we got our eyes on this as a constitutional matter so keep that in mind when you decide on what you're gonna do about this. When Congress makes a decision on this particular law (either change it or keep it), SCOTUS may take a look, but that doesn't mean they'll rule against it, as Congress and the Military can present an argument that it might be necessary for military defense reasons.
You don't explicitly say (this being an internationally visited and populated site), but based on your question, I will assume that you are in the US. For the question you asked: Is the company the government? If not, then NO, you cannot successfully sue a company (or person for that matter) for violating the freedom of speech granted by the First Amendment to the US Constitution in any circumstances whatsoever. (Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine). The US Constitution does not bind or restrict any private* individual or company, in any way. (Here &quot;private&quot; means &quot;non-governmental; a &quot;public(ly traded) company&quot; is still considered a &quot;private&quot; entity in this context). The US Constitution exclusively deals with four things: How the US Federal Government operates, powers of the government, and restrictions of the government, and the definition of treason (which arguably is itself a restriction on the power of the government, by denying them the ability to define treason themselves). The First Amendment itself is explicit about this restriction: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech (emphasis mine). Note that, while the First Amendment does not mention acts of the President, this is because the President's Constitutional powers are quite weak and limited; What powers the President does have and usually uses are granted to the office by laws passed by Congress, and so the restriction comes with them, as Congress cannot delegate to the President powers that Congress themselves do not possess). As such, no company can be sued for violating the First Amendment (or any portion of the Constitution, really) because it does not apply to them. Now, there may be laws passed by relevant legislatures, but these are dependent on your jurisdiction (e.g. state). However, as a general rule of thumb this would be legal. Turning down a candidate based on what they say in an interview is the point of having an interview; Turning down an candidate for saying something in an interview that could potentially leave the company liable for a lawsuit under the theory of vicarious liability is only good common sense.
Does he have some kind of libel or invasion of privacy case? The description of the "art work" is somewhat inconclusive. I will assume that the red lipstick and blue eye shadow in the fictional poster are suggestive of that soldier's "makeup". If the World War Two soldier were still alive and a straight male, he might have a claim of defamation insofar as the poster portrayed him as having a sexual orientation which is inaccurate, detrimental to his reputation, and tending to dissuade others from associating with the soldier. Policies against sexual discrimination aside, no straight male likes being falsely characterized as to sexual orientation (in part because of the undeniably harmful, lasting impact something like this would have in his environment). The defendant's possible allegation that the "art work" was hyperbole would be unavailing. That is because the suggestive poster is likely to impinge on viewers a detrimental concept of the soldier even if it is obvious to those viewers that the poster was not an actual, color photograph taken of him during the World War II. In most jurisdictions in the US, the defamed soldier would need to file suit within a year from the publication of the poster (an exception is Tennessee: six months) because the statute of limitations for claims of defamation is shorter than most others.
No &quot;Election interference&quot; is not a crime or a legal category. It is a term often used by the press to indicate a variety of actions, some illegal, some legal but argued to be improper or dangerous. For example, it is perfectly legal for anyone, citizen or alien, to make statements about the election or the candidates, even if these are knowingly false, as long as they do not rise to legal defamation (and the bar for that in an election context is very high). But doing this has been called &quot;Election interference&quot; in the press. It is generally unlawful for an alien to make a direct campaign contribution. The Federal Election Commission page on Who can and can't contribute says: Campaigns may not solicit or accept contributions from foreign nationals. Federal law prohibits contributions, donations, expenditures and disbursements solicited, directed, received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any election — federal, state or local. This prohibition includes contributions or donations made to political committees and building funds and to make electioneering communications. Furthermore, it is a violation of federal law to knowingly provide substantial assistance in the making, acceptance or receipt of contributions or donations in connection with federal and nonfederal elections to a political committee, or for the purchase or construction of an office building. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, acting as a conduit or intermediary for foreign national contributions and donations. There is an exception for the holders of green cards (who do not fit the conditions of the question). This same site's page on Types of contributions also says that: &quot;The entire amount paid to attend a political fundraiser or other political event or to purchase a fundraising item sold by a political committee is a contribution&quot; regardless of the expenses of the committee or market value of the merchandise. Thus when the question says that &quot;purchasing election merchandise is illegal&quot; it is correct if that merchandise is being sold as a fundraising effort, as most campaign merchandise is. But when it refers to &quot;discussing elections with a US citizen&quot; that is not only not illegal, it is protected activity under the US First Amendment (freedom of speech), which is not limited to US citizens or residents. If a statement or electioneering communications is published, and its publication is paid for by a foreign national, and this is done at the request of or is suggested by a candidate or campaign committee, the payment will probably constitute an &quot;in-kind contribution&quot; and thus fall under the law against contributions by a foreign national. The above is a matter of federal law and Federal Constitutional rights, and so applies in every part of the US, including CA. Any state law purporting to make an alien &quot;discussing elections with a US citizen&quot; unlawful would almost surely be held unconstitutional and void on its face, although I don't know of a case where there was a court decision on this exact point. A law requiring a widely distributed statement supporting or opposing a candidate in an election identify its sources or sponsors might well be constitutional, by analogy with the &quot;I approve this message&quot; requirement for broadcast advertisements.
Taking the US as an example, the Constitution states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Congress or a state government hasn't prohibited you from comparing platforms. Another private entity has. And, that's fine. You're free to launch the app as a separate website, or print out the flyers and hand them to people on the bus, or publish your own monthly magazine comparing various platforms, so you still have freedom of speech and of the press. As an example, if you write a letter about how great the government of North Korea is to the letters department at Stamp Collectors Magazine, and they don't publish it, have they violated your human rights? The app store restriction may be quite dumb. After all, the built-in web browser allows the reading of the exact same news. But there's no law against being dumb.