> The Constitution may not differentiate between individuals and other entities, but the courts have differentiated between them.
When? To my knowledge, there are no major landmark decisions which hold that an association of individuals may be treated differently from individuals; especially as it relates to the First Amendment. We even have a precedent in Citizens United v FEC which reinforces the consistency between individuals and organizations under First Amendment jurisprudence.
> We definitely have freedom of the press, as it relates to defamation, and parody, but the precedent established in those cases may not apply to a case involving criminal acts.
The established cases also include criminal acts, as was the case when the Ku Klux Klan advocated for (criminal) violence. The courts have held that even advocating for illegal acts at some time in the future is protected (Hess).
There's nothing I know of that applies to the First Amendment, but there are many examples where individuals and organizations, or even organizations in different levels of government, are held to different standards under the law. The standards for HOAs versus local government is a good example. Some states require that HOAs enforce code equally, but will permit local government to enforce it unequally because local government has relatively limited resources.
The court may consider a media corporation to be identical to an individual in terms of First Amendment cases, but I wouldn't be certain about that.
The established cases do include criminal acts, but those were challenged based on the unconstitutionality of state law, and were in different crcumstances. If DT were charged with inciting a riot by the District of Columbia, then Hess is great precedent, but I don't think it would be great in a government case against a media corporation. The government likely wouldn't bring criminal charges against a specific individual either, which changes things. If they seek monetary damages and an injunction, or even just an injunction, the precedent used in Hess may not apply.
> There's nothing I know of that applies to the First Amendment
Citizens United. It ruled that a law banning corporations (and other kinds of associations such as non-profits and labor unions) from making campaign contributions was an unconstitutional abrogation of their First Amendment rights.
When people fulminate against the idea of corporate personhood, what they're really fulminating against is the idea that corporations have First Amendment rights. Which should tell you just how likely SCOTUS is to distinguish between private individuals and corporations when it comes to First Amendment rights: not at all.
I'm not so sure about that. There's a big difference between whether corporations have a first amendment rights and can make campaign contributions and whether their speech is protected in the same ways as the speech of individuals.
To be fair, even individual speech may or may not be protected depending on the circumstances, so corporate speech may also not be protected in certain circumstances even if SCOTUS always treats speech by individuals and by corporations the same.
When? To my knowledge, there are no major landmark decisions which hold that an association of individuals may be treated differently from individuals; especially as it relates to the First Amendment. We even have a precedent in Citizens United v FEC which reinforces the consistency between individuals and organizations under First Amendment jurisprudence.
> We definitely have freedom of the press, as it relates to defamation, and parody, but the precedent established in those cases may not apply to a case involving criminal acts.
The established cases also include criminal acts, as was the case when the Ku Klux Klan advocated for (criminal) violence. The courts have held that even advocating for illegal acts at some time in the future is protected (Hess).