[Author’s note: I almost did not complete this post as Ari Armstrong at The Objective Standard posted a couple articles (here and here) that cover the much same ground, but I decided that it was worth doing my version to continue my efforts to improve my writing.]
The internet is on fire these days with the recent suspension by A&E of Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson. The suspension was triggered by his comments during an interview with GQ magazine. The comment that appears to have most raised the ire of some groups was in comparing homosexuality to bestiality,
Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.
There is a lot we don’t know about this situation. While the quotation above is the reason usually given, we do not know what has been going on behind the scenes. Perhaps the powers that be at A&E have had other issues with Phil Robertson or Duck Dynasty and took this as a way to end the show without unilaterally breaking the contract. (I am assuming here, and reasonably I think, that A&E’s actions were allowed under their contract with Phil Robertson.) We don’t know if Phil had issues with A&E or other motives and chose stating his beliefs in a way that would cause the network to suspend him without undue penalty. All this is speculation, but the point remains that we don’t know all that was involved in the situation.
What we do know for certain is that, despite what many conservatives have stated online and via other mediums, Phil Robertson’s rights were not violated by A&E’s action.
Many on Twitter and Facebook, including the Robertson family and Ted Cruz, have implied or stated outright that Phil Robertson’s first amendment rights, free speech or freedom of religion-take your pick, were violated. A simple reading of the first amendment shows this to be false.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The first amendment only applies to government action, not the action of private parties. If the government had gone to A&E and said to them, “Pull this guy off the air or we pull your license and fine you,” then it would have been a violation of first amendment rights. This was obviously not the case here.
More broadly, rights properly understood are the protection of the ability to act in a social context. Thus, the freedom of speech means that every man is free to express his opinions on any topic he cares to and no person my use force to prevent him from doing so. A&E did not throw Phil Robertson in jail, gag him, burn the offices of GQ magazine to prevent the publication of the article. A&E simply, within the rights of their contract, decided not to provide a forum for him to speak from. Freedom of speech does not include the right to compel someone to give you a platform from which to speak. There can be no legitimate rights that entail an obligation for someone else to support you. Just as a conservative newspaper should be under no obligation to print a liberal op-ed piece on a subject contrary to the publisher’s beliefs, a television network, or any employer, should have the right, within the confines of applicable contracts, to suspend or fire any employee who acts or speaks in a way that they deem to be harmful to the company.
Some have even stated flat out that A&E’s action is censorship or that A&E was censoring, to use Ted Cruz’s word, ideas they disagree with. Again, this is obviously false . Censorship is properly speaking only possible by the government and as noted above, your right to free speech does not include the obligation of someone else to provide an outlet for that speech, regardless of the content. As cartoonist Bosch Fawstin put, if this is censorship then so is the fact that Marvel and DC have thus far refused to publish his Pigman comic book.
Regardless of whether you “Stand With Phil” and are boycotting A&E, feel that A&E’s actions were not the best way for the network to deal with the situation, or believe that Phil’s comments warranted his suspension, it is important to keep in mind that no rights, constitutional or otherwise, were violated.