OK, GOP, defend speech you don’t agree with

As the dust settles over A&Es Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertsons interview in GQ, Id like to offer a challenge to all who defended his right to wax nostalgic about how happy black people were before the civil rights era (also stating that Shintoism is basically Nazism and homosexuality is basically bestiality). To all those who rushed to Robertsons defense invoking the First Amendment of the Constitution, specifically free speech in an effort to immunize against any repercussions Id like to dare you folks to defend controversial speech that doesnt fit your worldview.

If you really believe in free speech, if you really think its in danger of being abridged, if you really believe its an absolute right of living in a free country then stand up for liberals who say dumb things, too. Rally for Alec Baldwin. How about the governor of Louisiana spend an afternoon tweeting support for Martin Bashirs alleged right to a basic cable show. Get some Change.org petitions going. Get these people back on TV!

In 2010, Sarah Palin called for President Obamas then chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, to be fired because he privately used the word retarded. Palin was so offended by the word retard she equated it to the N-word (then later passionately defended the use of the N-word when Dr. Laura was the one slinging it across the airwaves). Palin cited her child with Down Syndrome as the reason Rahm should lose his job for his potty mouth. She wrote on Facebook: I would ask the president to show decency in this process by eliminating one member of that inner circle, Mr. Rahm Emanuel, and not allow Rahms continued indecent tactics to cloud efforts.

I have no idea what indecent tactics to cloud efforts means but I defend her right to use her random thesaurus generator app to create fake controversies against her political enemies.

Corporations should not have to sponsor people who say things which will hurt their brand. Thats their choice. Its, in the literal sense, their business. The Constitution is about what the government can and cant do not what A&E execs can and cant do. Thats the issue I have with privatization: It erodes liberties ensured by the government.

But also, my telling you to shut up is not infringing on your constitutional rights. There is no law or ordinance against private citizens telling each other to shut their yap traps, nor should there be. The First Amendment is about the government specifically Congress not creating laws to curb speech.

That being said you the chattering class of conservative culture war mercenaries; you the Trumped-up, tooth-bleached, memo-driven, outrage industrial complex genuflectors; you the good-old-days evangelizing, controversy-touting, overly aghast gasbags: You dont actually believe in free speech. So shut up.

Why am I convinced Americas right wing is not a bastion of unfettered uninterrupted speech impunity? Ill sum it up in one name: Shirley Sherrod.

There was no 24-hour news cycle defense of Shirley Sherrod being able to say whatever she wanted without consequence. No. Her words were taken out of context edited with an agenda and she lost her job as Georgia State Director of Rural Development along with her reputation. Did anyone at Fox News stand up and raise an inaccurate interpretation of the scope of the First Amendment to defend Ms. Sherrod? No.

Theyre for selective free speech. Its like saying everyone has an absolute right to own a gun as long as youre a Republican. Then you are not actually for the absolute right to own a gun. Youre for the absolute rights of Republicans.

Read more:
OK, GOP, defend speech you don’t agree with