That's the question all of us should be asking in the wake of the recent "Duck Dynasty" kerfuffle. Should Phil Robertson have been suspended by the A&E network from appearing on the hit reality show, because he gave an interview in which he made remarks about African-Americans and gays that place him squarely somewhere in the 19th century? For that matter, should he have been "un-suspended," as he was within days of the suspension?
Let's be clear about a few things. First and foremost, there is no First Amendment issue here. You don't think so? Then stop reading this blog post right now, and don't come back until you've read the First Amendment, and maybe (if you're feeling ambitious) some of the case law interpreting it. The First Amendment protects speech against suppression or limitation by the government, or an agent acting on its behalf. It has absolutely no application to a relationship between two private parties, such as a cable network and a family. Or, at the most, it has limited application in those situations, such as whether or not a "whistleblower" statute can be enacted against workplace misconduct. Apart from such a limited application, however, A&E and the Robertsons have what amount in common law to a master-servant contract that can be governed by any terms they agree upon. And, if A&E's contract with the Robertsons was such that it did not allow them to take exception to statements or actions to which decent people would object, then shame on it, as well as its lawyers.
That doesn't mean, however, that I agree with the suspension. First, A&E knew they weren't getting into bed with The Best And The Brightest when they agreed to put this show on the air. Second, Robertson's interview was not part of the show itself, even though the interview undoubtedly never would have happened without the celebrity aura that the show conferred on the family. But, most of all, the network just gave Robertson an opportunity he didn't deserve to play the martyr card, an opportunity taken advantage of not only by the Robertsons but also their fellow-traveling publicity whores in the right-wing community--in particular, the one who knows how to write, but not to read. I so love to write about her without mentioning her name; it's the torment that she deserves.
What should A&E done instead? Publicly condemn and otherwise distance themselves from his remarks, of course. Terminate the show as soon as its contract had run. And vowed that the next time they create a reality show about a family, it'll be about an African-American family. Or a gay family. Or both. The antidote to free speech badly used is free speech well used.
But the publicity whores' commentary is not without a valuable lesson. Their vehement, overheated and generally incoherent First Amendment arguments on the Robertsons' behalf prove one point: from the vast, right-wing conspiracy's perspective, it's civil rights for we, but not for thee. Ask any liberal who's been on the receiving end of bad treatment because of their own political "incorrectness." Ask the Dixie Chicks, or Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins. See if the publicity whores came to their aid. You should not be surprised that the answer will be no.
Because, to a conservative, freedom of speech is freedom for their speech. Don't ever let them get away with making that stick. Your own freedom of speech will be forfeit. And you will have given it away.
No comments:
Post a Comment