I am a big believer in the First Amendment and Free Speech. I have reviewed the text of the FA, and I can’t find any reference to Congress ensuring that anyone be given a TV show.
And part of the idea behind Free Speech is that ideas can be challenged, and that Congress cannot enact laws impinging that freedom.
Enough ranting, the title states the question. I am not looking to censor anyone, and I couldn’t care less about the status of Duck Dynasty.
But I would definitely sign a petition expressing my disgust with the level of ignorance Mr. Robertson displayed.
This incident has absolutely nothing to do with ‘Free Speech’. The issue here is ‘Television Ratings’.
The first Amendment has nothing to do with it, unless one can show that either a) A&E is actually a government agency, or b) that ‘duck hunters’ or ‘guys with long beards’ are a protected class (which wouldn’t really be a 1st Amendment issue anyway…maybe a 14th Amendment issue one).
The United States Constitution is a wonderful document. I just wish that people would read it before they start quoting it.
The first amendment and free speech are not the same thing. The former protects the latter. I happen to think that free speech should be encouraged even when not covered by the first amendment.
The First Amendment proper, as written, only restricts the actions of the Federal Government, through its lawmaking legislative branch, Congress. This was historically important, as books were often banned at the state level; for a while, anyone who was anyone had read a book which was “Banned In Boston”, the Puritan Massachusetts natives having taken a hard line against anything which gave the blue-stockings a noticeable increase in blood flow to the organs they officially didn’t have.
This was passed after the Civil War as part of the Reconstruction Amendments. It would form the basis for the doctrine of incorporation, by which process the Supreme Court decided that the majority of the Bill of Rights constrained the actions of state governments, as well as the Federal government. This was a major shift in how the relationship between the various governments and the people was seen and it happened slowly, over the course of decades. Now, however, the First Amendment is fully incorporated and so no government in the US (not even a local or county government) can violate it.
But this still only applies to governments. Private companies are not governments, and not bound by any of the Bill of Rights or any other Constitutional clause or amendment. They’re bound by laws, instead, and no laws say A&E has to keep Phil Robertson on the payroll in any capacity, assuming they’re willing to pay any penalty for violating any contract they may have with him.
Marsh was a Jehovah’s Witness distributing religious material in the company town of Chickasaw, Alabama, owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation, in 1945. She was convicted of trespassing, and the Supreme Court held that the conviction couldn’t stand.
Obviously the situation has nothing to do with the First Amendment. But I don’t know why we’re adopting such a cramped view of “free speech.” Is our societal value of “free speech” really just limited to areas covered by the First Amendment?
I remember a while back there was the issue of the “ground zero mosque.” And there were petitions and protests to discourage the group in charge from building it. And, on the other side, there were all sorts of people talking about “freedom of religion” and so on. And, obviously, they were incorrect as a matter of constitutional law (and I have no doubt that any contemporaneous threads on here at the time pointed that out). But, it seems to me that they were right that it, at least, implicated a commitment to religious freedom.
The Ground Zero mosque issue did involve the government. It wasn’t just a bunch of protests, it was a concerted effort to get the borough council (and later the municipal and state governments) to withhold planning permission or otherwise Do Something.
That said, I think the more important distinguishing feature here is that Robertson’s employment by A&E is primarily tied to his public image. Joe Smith the cashier’s employment at Best Buy is quite dissimilar in that regard. Thus, a significant question here is:
This is more about employment law than freedom of speech. In most states, you can be fired for any reason, or for no reason at all, unless an employment contracts says otherwise, so a common answer would be “yes.”
I was hoping for a GA to my GQ… Can I open another thread with the same title, but with less blathering in the OP?
I appreciate the responses, but I’m not sure how much I care. I don’t see this as a FA or FS issue. I just want to sign the: 'Phil Robertson can “Free Speak” all he wants; He’s an ignorant, dull-witted, douche-bag-wanna-be’ petition.