Go have your little libertardian circle-jerk somewhere else; we just cleaned the rugs.
The Invisible Hand does give the best HJs...
First amendment has nothing to do with this. The first amendment protects from criminal government prosecution, not reactions from private individuals/entities.
That's usually (roughly) the right answer when someone cries "But the First Amendment!" on Slashdot. However, your interpretation is too narrow.
In point of fact, the 1st Amendment does impose hard limits in other parts of the law, like defamation and copyright. It's not just about jackboots smashing our cameras.
The American version of Fair Use, for instance, is qualitatively stronger than the EU and most of the rest of the world. That's at least partly because the Supreme Court recognizes constitutional (1A) limits on how strong and absolute the restriction of speech is allowed to be.
All that is to say: First Amendment protection for journalism and dissemination of newsworthy/public interest speech will absolutely be a factor that a judge will explicitly weigh if any of this ever makes it into a courtroom.
Well, to be fair, Michael Porter isn't selling anything. Didn't you read the headline? Harvard said all this stuff.
I share your General Meh** for the coming <blink>Internet of Things</blink>, but I'm really excited for the coming era of ubiquitous corporate anthropomorphism.
**You know, the legendarily indifferent warlord with the awesome chicken.
"Been through Hell? Whaddya bring back for me?" -- A. Brilliant