Historically, the first amendment has never been used as a defense in antitrust law (and for good reason). A business and it's self-expression is kinda besides the point when you're analyzing market harm and extrinsic impact. Microsoft was not within their means to "self-express" coordinated first-party limitations to stifle competing browsers. Apple using the same tactic does not automatically make it legal because they're percieved as some form of underdog.
If Apple really wants to express themselves, United States law won't stop them from disincorporating and relocating their private assets to a nation they're more comfortable with like Russia or China. They could become a PRC-subsidiary and fulfill their destiny of being the man in the glasses on the grey TV.
I was thinking more in general terms of how every possible art or endeavor has been hijacked by political corruption in one form or another and we’re just still rolling with it, with zero recourse through speaking out.
Though perhaps we haven’t exhausted all the first amendment options yet as we’re all still pretty cozy and can’t be bothered yet to try and unravel it all.
Unfortunately with that approach, by the time it becomes urgent enough to rouse us, it will be too late in many respects.
If Apple really wants to express themselves, United States law won't stop them from disincorporating and relocating their private assets to a nation they're more comfortable with like Russia or China. They could become a PRC-subsidiary and fulfill their destiny of being the man in the glasses on the grey TV.