Bobby Jindal thinks Duck Dynasty star’s job is protected by the First Amendment

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal recently tweeted “I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment.” Apparently Jindal isn’t aware that the First Amendment protects people (and possibly corporations, which are people, too) from government interference with their speech.

But it’s not all that simple. The Supreme Court has held in some cases that speech rights trump private property rights.

Anyway, Phil Robertson, the Duck Dynasty star, did make some pretty disgusting anti-gay remarks. But if they had been anti-straight would he have been suspended? If they had been anti-straight should he have been suspended?

Looking at it another way, I believe A&E, the Duck Dynasty network, could have legally suspended Robertson for being straight, because heterosexuals are not a protected class. But in many states, they could not suspend him for being gay, because gays are a protected class.

So where does the Bitemaster stand? Frankly, he’s conflicted.

Opinion: ‘Duck Dynasty’ star’s free speech rights weren’t violated –

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *