YES THIS IS TOO A "FREE SPEECH" ISSUE!

 

( Photo from http://blog.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/StatementIMG_PhilRobertson.png)

I don’t think I need to fill anyone in on the current issue with Phil Robertson and A&E. You’d have to live under a rock to not know what is going on. I just want to address one issue. When this initially came to light, a massive number of people responded that they were concerned primarily because the actions of A&E violated Phil’s free speech. People on both sides of the aisle, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, were making this argument.

Subsequently, people began to respond that it was not a “free speech” issue. The claim is that Phil’s free speech rights have not been violated because of various reasons. Some of those are, “A&E is not the government, so they can’t be held to the Constitution.” Or, “Phil is their employee, so they can do whatever they want.” Or maybe “Free speech doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want and not face responsibility from your employer.”

Since, I mentioned these three conclusions, let me address them. However, my general point is more philosophical, and I’ll make it after I address these. I’m not an attorney; I’m more interested in the philosophical aspect of this. But I ought to refute these examples, since I raised them.

To the first one, that “A&E is not the government, so they can’t be held to the Constitution.” This is just false, and seems to be rooted in a misunderstanding of the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t just protect American citizens from the government. It also established (by discovering and defining, not as the origin of those rights) what rights the citizenship has and that the government is responsible for protecting. The purpose of the Constitution is found right in the preamble:

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So, the purpose is partly to “defend” the rights of the citizens. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to claim that only the government can violate the right of free speech. An employer can no more usurp your right to free speech any more than they can your right to assemble, own a gun, or petition your government. If an employer terminated you because you wrote your congressman, you’d have Constitutional grounds to claim that your employer had violated your rights.

                As to Phil being an employee, I don’t think that being an employee automatically implies that one has ceded one’s rights to the employer. I would agree that the employer ought to be able to terminate or suspend an employee without giving a cause.  However, in this case, they DID give a cause. They cited Phil’s position on homosexuality. Furthermore, A&E is not just an employer, they are a member of the media. Public speech is their business. Their “employees” are professional public speakers in a sense. It follows that they ought to have a particular expectation to uphold that freedom of speech.

                This obviously raises the question of contract. Did Phil sign a contract saying what he would and wouldn’t say publically? I don’t know. I’ve heard the contract says this, but it seems people are assuming it says this. I’ve also heard that the Robertsons, as a family, have stated that they will not compromise “God or guns” in their show. That seems like evidence that they applied some thought about their public positions on subjects of faith and Scripture before this alleged contract. However, this question raises the question of whether a contract can be drawn up that cedes one’s right to free speech entirely. That would be a fairly cumbersome contract. I don’t know that it is possible.

                The third objection, that “free speech doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want and not face responsibility from your employer”, is accurate. But, I don’t think that applies to this case. The simple fact that Phil’s words offended someone does not seem to me to be sufficient reason to warrant discipline. I’m not the person to lay out what all would be sufficient, but claiming that saying something offensive is sufficient for discipline is just illogical and ridiculous.

                Here’s my main concern. If we claim that this issue is not a free speech issue, then we have to begin to tighten the terms of what is necessary and sufficient to fit the definition of the right to free speech beyond what our Constitution intended. Considering what would follow, I don’t think that is wise at all. We’d end up with a system where we could be censored by all sorts of measures as long as they don’t involve government intervention.  A fascist state could logically emerge where corporations could censor citizens, and we’d have no grounds to defend ourselves because we ceded the Constitutional protection of free speech.  

                So…Yes! This is indeed an issue of free speech! And it is one that should be of particular concern to Christians. The Gospel requires the mention of sin. There is no Gospel message that doesn't include mentioning sin. Mentioning sin offends people. Free speech means we have a right to offend people. (It's not that our intention is to offend people, but rescuing them necessitates it.) We have to protect that right. That involves recognizing when it is threatened. And at the moment, in this situation with the Robertson family, our free speech is threatened.