"It doesn't infringe on constitutional speech rights."
How is that? People who do significant business w the PRC have free speech rights like everyone else.
How is that? People who do significant business w the PRC have free speech rights like everyone else.
Am I rationalizing this wrongly? I'm not a lawyer and might genuinely have Dunning-Krugered myself into a corner. There are already established laws about lobbying and influencing US politics as an agent of a foreign government. This looks similar to that: in the one case a foreign government is paying you to speak; in the other case, a foreign government is threatening your assets in their country, with your speech as the demanded condition. Are these not similar?
I think what you are describing is that PRC offers an enticing deal to many businesses: use Chinese labor to get higher margins on your consumer products. If you criticize the PRC they can hurt your company's bottom line by denying you access to that labor, but your company can still move production to a different country or (gasp) back to the US and figure out how to get higher margins. In that way, China is merely a business partner for private industry. You wouldn't bad-talk a business partner and expect them to continue to do business with you.
The victim in this scenario isn't the company—it's the US speakers being censored by a foreign dictator, with this company acting as an intermediary. I.e. in this thread, we're not talking about Tim Cook's speech; we're talking about Jon Stewart's speech, and Tim Cook censoring him at the behest of Beijing.