Breaking News: Elderly Lousiana Redneck is a Homophobic Racist

[Raistlin]

I think it's a bit silly for A&E to suspend an elderly, hick redneck that they hired to be an elderly, hick redneck for... being an elderly, hick redneck. That doesn't remotely justify any of Robertson's bigotry and his disturbing lack of empathy for black people in the pre-Civil Rights era, but I'm just not sure why this became such a big deal to begin with.

Of course, none of that remotely justifies that manufactured outrage of the religious right over "discrimination!" and "free speech!" and other such buzzwords. A&E has the right to refuse to give Robertson a platform under the exact same free speech principles that give Roberston the right to spout off in the first place. The First Amendment does not protect you from social consequences that others voluntarily inflict on you in response to your speech. You have the right to say what you want, and everyone else has the right to react to it in the legal manner of their choosing.

To sum up my opinion: everyone is being stupid. That seems to be the case in many controversies manufactured by the media.

Instead of going into more detail, I'll just bug all of you to read Popehat's take, which, as usual, is among the best and most reasoned responses on the internet. I especially want to highlight two parts:

2. The phrase "the spirit of the First Amendment" often signals approaching nonsense. So, regrettably, does the phrase "free speech" when uncoupled from constitutional free speech principles. These terms often smuggle unprincipled and internally inconsistent concepts — like the doctrine of the Preferred+ First Speaker. The doctrine of the Preferred First Speaker holds that when Person A speaks, listeners B, C, and D should refrain from their full range of constitutionally protected expression to preserve the ability of Person A to speak without fear of non-governmental consequences that Person A doesn't like. The doctrine of the Preferred First Speaker applies different levels of scrutiny and judgment to the first person who speaks and the second person who reacts to them; it asks "why was it necessary for you to say that" or "what was your motive in saying that" or "did you consider how that would impact someone" to the second person and not the first. It's ultimately incoherent as a theory of freedom of expression.

[...]

Discussions about corporate decisions in the wake of controversy are dominated by (1) people who normally excoriate corporate decision-making but suddenly applaud it when the outcome suits their political beliefs, and (2) people who normally celebrate the market and promote the privilege of corporate decision-making but suddenly find it unpalatable when it produces a result that offends their politics. Some of the people applauding A&E are people who last week were furious at the concept that companies have First Amendment rights. Some of the people trying to conflate A&E and the government are people who last week were vigorously arguing that companies should not have to insure birth control if it offends their religious sensibilities.