M. Suzanne Terry

I’ve been avoiding social media this week because of the Duck Dynasty fiasco.  It’s not because I harbor any ill will against Phil Robertson.  I generally find him amusing (or at least I did, before reading his unsettling remarks about how he could tell the slaves were happy because they were singing…that gives me considerable pause), and I have watched and enjoyed the show.  I mean, I have absolutely zero need for duck calls or any hunting-related paraphernalia in my life, but the show is entertaining, for what it is.

I’m not even shocked by his statements.  For a white man his age who grew up and has lived his whole life in the South, those are unfortunately not unusual opinions.  Horrible and wrong, sure.  But not unusual.  In order to despise him, I would have to despise most of the elderly people I know, and I’m not prepared to do that.

What, then, irks me beyond my tolerance threshold when situations like this arise?  Seeing statements such as this – “I guess A&E doesn’t believe in freedom of speech.”- in my Facebook feed.

*sigh*

Once again, the Internet has been faithful to reveal the piss-poor state of our educational system by throwing out hot button phrases such as “freedom of speech” and “violation of rights” in order to rile people up without going to the bothersome trouble of learning what those freedoms actually entail and what those rights actually are.

So let’s discuss what the First Amendment says about your freedom of speech.

The First Amendment, truncated for our purposes (but you can read the whole thing here if you want) states, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.”

That is the entirety of what the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees you as a citizen regarding freedom of speech.  With very few exceptions, you can say what you want to say, and it is not against the law.

It protects you from being arrested for simply speaking your mind.  That would be a violation of your rights.

It protects you from being imprisoned for what you say.  That would be a violation of your rights.

It protects you from the law – that is, the government – not from private entities such as individual citizens or, say, a television network.

It protects you from legal ramifications.  I suppose, of course, that a person or company could sue you, but, provided that what you said cannot be proven to be libel or slander (examples of those exceptions I mentioned), they would not win unless you have a stunningly crapulous attorney and an idiot judge, because for them to win such a case would be a violation of your rights.

Now let’s discuss some things from which it does not protect you.

It does not protect you from people disagreeing with you and saying so.  That’s just other people exercising their freedom of speech.

It does not protect you from criticism.  Again, that’s just other people having the same rights as you do.

It does not protect you from a professor throwing you out of class when you say something disrespectful or otherwise inappropriate, and the professor gets to decide what is appropriate and what is not, because the professor is the one who is held responsible for what happens in his or her classroom.

And finally, it does not protect you from being reprimanded, suspended, or even fired when you say something that opposes the values of your employer, especially if you, knowing that your values differ, are dumb enough to say it at work, in a highly public forum (for example, an interview to which you were invited specifically because of your job), or while being recorded and/or reported.  That is not a violation of your rights.  That is your employer being true to the values to which they have committed, regardless of what it might cost them in terms of viewers or money.That is your employer exhibiting integrity, and their response to your behavior is called consequence, not persecution.

It could be argued that speaking one’s religious convictions is worth whatever consequences it might bring.  That is a generous way to look at this situation.  This cynic has questions, though.  If one’s convictions on an issue are really so strong, would one work for an organization that not only blatantly disagrees with those convictions but also actively asserts its opposition to them?  If one is truly concerned with taking a stand, can one still in good conscience take a paycheck from said organization?  If the answer to either of these questions is yes, in word or deed, I have a hard time believing the conviction is real.  I find it more likely that the so-called conviction is really more of a publicity stunt or an offhand, thoughtless comment.  It makes it look more like he was just trying to use his privilege (because being famous and being paid to say things on TV and to reporters are indeed privileges, not rights) to promote his platform, and it backfired.