It sounds extremely bizarre to me that it's OK to criticize Hillary Clinton, it's OK to do it when getting salary from, say, CNN (though not that it would ever happen... ok, from Fox News, right?) but not OK to do the same if you get the same salary from, say, RT. It's like freedom of speech suddenly depends on where your money come from and whether any of it were in hands of Russians before. That's one weird interpretation of the First Amendment.
Doesn't the first amendment apply to citizens of the United States and not to hostile foreign agents?
The problem is that the Russians do not have the country's best interests in mind when they try to influence an election. On the other hand, the anchors on CNN, even though one might disagree with them, do have the country's best interests in mind because they're invested in the situation as citizens.
No, the First Amendment applies to Congress, and by the 14th Amendment, to the States. It does not apply to persons, regardless of their citizenship or friendship status with the US.
> Doesn't the first amendment apply to citizens of the United States and not to hostile foreign agents?
It was supposed to apply to every US person, regardless of citizenship. For non-US persons it's a bit theoretical since there's no real way to prosecute anybody outside the US, but activities protected by 1st amendment for a citizen still shouldn't be a base for prosecution by the US government, even against non-citizen. But it turns out that if you declare someone "hostile foreign agent" - on basis as strong as "criticizing Hillary Clinton" - it no longer applies. I am, frankly, extremely scared of the power of the state security to prosecute any non-citizen for as little as publishing an opinion about US political matters.
And if you remember what happened to surveillance - which was sold as applying only to non-citizens with extraordinary safeguards applied if a citizen happens to be involved, and turned out being routinely applied to citizens as a course of matters, with very little resistance or oversight - I don't see how this could not be extended to citizens too.
But even if it's not - does it mean any non-citizen immigrant which speaks for immigrant rights, or supports DREAM Act, or opposes Trump on immigration policy, or does any other political activity, can be declared a criminal now? Have you thought through which exactly powers you are supporting giving the state and how these powers can be abused?
