Sarah Palin Defends Dr. Laura, Gets First Amendment Wrong (Again)

Sarah Palin decided to get involved in the "Doctor Laura" Schlessinger controversy, and in the process displayed a blatant misunderstanding of the First Amendment.

For reasons that I suppose she understands, Sarah Palin decided to get involved in the controversy surrounding Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s use of the n-word and her decision to end her show at the end of this year, and in the process she once again displayed a vast misunderstanding of what freedom of speech actually is:

Another day, another 1st Amendment flap involving socially conservative broadcasters.

Onetime vice presidential candidate and former governor of Alaska Sarah Palin on Wednesday tweeted her support for Dr. Laura Schlessinger after the advice guru said she was leaving radio broadcasting over 1st Amendment issues following racially charged comments she made last week.

Schlessinger repeatedly used the “N word” on her show Aug. 10 while discussing with a caller black comedians’ use of the word. She has since apologized twice and made the decision to quit her radio show (but to continue broadcasting on her website and on YouTube, among others).

Palin, who faced her own freedom-of-speech dilemma recently after Facebook inadvertently removed one of her posts criticizing the decision to build a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center attacks in 2001, used a pet phrase of hers to advise Schlessinger: “Don’t retreat … reload.”

First, Palin tweeted this:

Dr.Laura:don’t retreat…reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence”isn’t American,not fair”)

Then, she said this:

Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice,America!

Essentially, Palin is arguing that Schlessinger’s First Amendment rights have been violated by the fact that she engaged in a tasteless rant against a caller who was asking a serious question, using a vile racial epithet in the process. Of course, Schlessinger was not fired for that rant and her decision to leave radio is entirely a voluntary one so, you know, the First Amendment doesn’t really apply here.

This isn’t the first time Palin has displayed an odd understanding of the First Amendment. During the campaign, she complained that journalists who were asking questions about her and her record were violating her First Amendment rights and that such journalists were “a threat to democracy.” During the Carrie Prejean beauty pageant/gay marriage kerfuffle, she accused the media and pageant officials of violating Prejean’s First Amendment rights. And back in May she essentially said that journalists who printed stories she didn’t like were a threat to freedom of the press.

For reference, here’s what the First Amendment actually says:

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.

See ? Nothing in there about private entities, and nothing that says that a politician like Palin or a radio host like “Doctor” Laura can say what they want without having to be held accountable for it by an independent, even critical media.

You see, that’s what the whole freedom thing is all about. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that you get to say whatever you want without anyone criticizing you for it.

FILED UNDER: Politicians, Sarah Palin, US Politics, , , , ,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. mantis says:

    Of course, Schlessinger was not fired for that rant and her decision to leave radio is entirely a voluntary one so, you know, the First Amendment doesn’t really apply here.

    It wouldn’t apply if she were fired, either, because it has nothing to do with the government.

  2. You are, of course, correct there

  3. anjin-san says:

    The few times I listened to “Dr. Laura”, she spent most of her show calling young women who have sex outside of marriage sluts. An interesting bedfellow for Palin. At any rate, none of Schlessinger’s rights have been violated. And it is hardly news that Palin does not have a clue about the Constitution.

  4. floyd says:

    I agree wholeheartedly with the gist of this article.
    It is perplexing to find someone here at “Outside the Beltway” actually quoting the text of the first amendment appropriately.
    .
    Usually all you hear on the subject are claims of some amorphous incompetent tangent “right ” not enumerated in the text.
    Thanks for the fresh breeze in lieu of the all too common flatulence.

  5. Dave says:

    You see, that’s what the whole freedom thing is all about. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that you get to say whatever you want without anyone criticizing you for it.

    Along these lines, Freedom of religion doesn’t mean you can build whatever religious centers you want without people critizing you for it.

  6. mantis says:

    Along these lines, Freedom of religion doesn’t mean you can build whatever religious centers you want without people critizing you for it.

    True, but I wonder if you’d feel the same way if it was a Christian church being opposed.

  7. Franklin says:

    Along these lines, Freedom of religion doesn’t mean you can build whatever religious centers you want without people critizing you for it.

    That’s correct. YOU understand. But this is why it’s so hard to have a dialogue. When people like Obama point out that they are legally allowed to build the mosque, people like you naturally say, “of course.” But then we get Palin or the nuts who are opposed to ANY mosque ANYWHERE, and it seems like the message is actually necessary.

  8. mantis says:

    Indeed, Franklin. Check out this new Economist poll:

    Whether or not you think the Islamic cultural centre and mosque should be built near the World Trade Center site, do you think that Muslims have a constitutional right to build a mosque there?

    Yes: 50.2%
    No: 32.7%
    Not Sure: 17.1%

    32.7% of the country believes that Muslims do not have a constitutional right to build a mosque, and another 17% aren’t sure. That is obscene. Our population’s familiarity with their own Constitution is pathetically, embarrassingly low. Of course, that same half of the country (presumably) thinks Obama is a Muslim or doesn’t know.

  9. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    Franklin, please quote where Palin has ever stated she is against the building of any Mosque? Failure to do so will make you out to be the liar I suspect. Mantis, when did Christians fly two fully loaded passenger planes in to building populated with people who had nothing to do with the horribly offensive act of having U.S. troops on Arabic soil. I guess none of the commenters here have ever heard Kat Williams comedy. He uses words freely that I AM NOT ALLOWED TO USE AN YOU DARE QUOTE FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS NOT BEING VIOLATED IF I CANNOT USE THOSE SAME WORDS? Your intellectul dishonesty is not due to a lack of honesty, it is due to a lack of intellect. Mataconis, are you and Mantis lovers?

  10. Joe R. says:

    Principled conservatives should refudiate Palin on this point.

  11. mantis says:

    Mantis, when did Christians fly two fully loaded passenger planes in to building populated with people who had nothing to do with the horribly offensive act of having U.S. troops on Arabic soil.

    I don’t know. When?

    I guess none of the commenters here have ever heard Kat Williams comedy. He uses words freely that I AM NOT ALLOWED TO USE AN YOU DARE QUOTE FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS NOT BEING VIOLATED IF I CANNOT USE THOSE SAME WORDS?

    You don’t have to yell. Who says you cannot use certain words?

    Please also note that constitutionally protected freedom of speech does not mean that citizens who own blogs must permit you to write whatever you want in their comment sections.

    Your intellectul dishonesty is not due to a lack of honesty, it is due to a lack of intellect. Mataconis, are you and Mantis lovers?

    You’re really hung up on the homosexual thing, aren’t you? Everyone who says something you don’t like is automatically gay. Are you 12 year old?

  12. Dave says:

    True, but I wonder if you’d feel the same way if it was a Christian church being opposed.

    To be clear, I support the Cordoba project 100%. I think it’s a great way to demonstrate to the wider world American tolerance and our recognition that 9/11 was not perpetuated by Islam itself but by psychopathic murderers.

    That said, opposition to the mosque is not “unconstitutional” nor any more against the spirit of the constitution than those criticizing Dr. Laura.

  13. mantis says:

    That said, opposition to the mosque is not “unconstitutional” nor any more against the spirit of the constitution than those criticizing Dr. Laura.

    No, people voicing their oppositions to the mosque is not unconstitutional at all. However, many of them think Muslims have no constitutional right to build, and a smaller number think all mosques should be banned (see the Economist poll above, or Zelsdorf’s comment in the other thread). They obviously think the government should step in to stop this project, or get rid of mosques altogether. This is quite plainly unconstitutional.

    In other words, when I talk about the Constitution in this case, I’m saying that what people are advocating, or at least implying, is unconstitutional. I’m not disagreeing with their right to say it.

  14. Joe R. says:

    You CAN use whatever words you want, Zelsdorf. It’s just that society gets to judge you, too, since freedom of speech applies to them, also.

    Sort of like how you have the freedom to pick up the phone, call your mother (or if your mother has passed, insert another maternal figure here), and call her a “f**king b**ch.” But you probably shouldn’t, and society will judge you if you do.

  15. floyd says:

    Franklin;
    B.O. is on the zoning board?
    B.O. used the words “right to build”
    Being “in accordance with local laws and ordinances” does not guarantee a permit ,therefore the permit is a priviledge , granted outside the purview of resident Obama, and not a “right”.
    This sounds like a lot of semantics to make a point… That B.O. had no standing for his comments, and did so only because of the venue and for short sighted political gain.
    Those who make these decisions in New York, did so with enforcible authority and the hope is that they can be made to answer for it at next election.

    This present whining about the mosque , disengenuous from both sides, could have easily been avoided had we done the right thing in the beginning.
    If that had been done,the “Burlington coat factory conversion” would remain a puny symbol standing just two blocks from a ” World Trade Center” rebuilt defiantly bigger and more glorious than the first.
    That would have been a real tribute to those who lost their lives, instead of a place espousing perennial sackcloth and ashes, celebrating defeat.

  16. JKB says:

    They obviously think the government should step in to stop this project, or get rid of mosques altogether. This is quite plainly unconstitutional.

    It would be unconstitutional for the government to step in and ban the mosque. It is not unconstitutional to think they should. It is just an error.

    Now if we go around thinking we should smack people around for having opinions that aren’t strictly constitutional, we’ll have to do some real violence to the members of Congress. And as for himself, we’ll Obama is theoretically a Harvard-educated lawyer who lectured on Constitutional law but he has made many statements that were clearly in opposition to constitutional provisions while in a position of power where his opinions could result in violations. Generally, we hold people who are supposedly educated in a subject to a stricter standard than laypeople. And those is position to impose their opinions through edict, regulation, or proposed legislation to a higher one than that. Yes, Palin spoke in error about the First Amendment but what should we do about those with advanced degrees in law from supposed elite schools , in positions where their day to day job is to properly executed the Constitutional provisions and still they are ignorant of or willfully ignoring the Constitution.

  17. mantis says:

    It would be unconstitutional for the government to step in and ban the mosque. It is not unconstitutional to think they should. It is just an error.

    Yes, I was quite clearly referring to government action being unconstitutional, not people expressing their desire for it. You know, like I explicit state here, as I figured people will try to twist it around:

    In other words, when I talk about the Constitution in this case, I’m saying that what people are advocating, or at least implying, is unconstitutional. I’m not disagreeing with their right to say it.

  18. tom p says:

    >>>That B.O. had no standing for his comments, and did so only because of the venue and for short sighted political gain.

    I have to ask Floyd: Just exactly what “short sighted political gain” did Barack Obama receive for his comments?

  19. tom p says:

    Oooops. My bad. I just realized that B.O. is your super secret short hand for Newt Gingrich… or is it Sarah Palin? No no no, you mean Marco Rubio? Rand Paul? Joe Lieberman? HARRY REID!!!

    I knew I’d get it.

  20. tom p says:

    >>You see, that’s what the whole freedom thing is all about.

    Doug, you secret muslim lover….

  21. ponce says:

    Sarah Palin for Queen of America!

  22. It’s funny how Palin is opposed to a mosque because it’s location might somehow vaguely imply an insult to someone, yet on their other hand wants to defend screaming racial slurs at people.

    Sensitivty for me, but not for thee, apparently.

  23. 32.7% of the country believes that Muslims do not have a constitutional right to build a mosque, and another 17% aren’t sure. That is obscene. Our population’s familiarity with their own Constitution is pathetically, embarrassingly low. Of course, that same half of the country (presumably) thinks Obama is a Muslim or doesn’t know.

    On the same line is the new Time poll:

    28% of voters think Muslims should be banned from sitting on the Supreme Courth
    33% of voters think Muslims should be banned from running for President
    45% of voters would oppose having a mosque of muslim community center in their neighborhood.

    Again, all the stuff about 9/11 is just a tactical excuse useful in this particular case. You can bet that if Cordoba house were moved someplace else, the protestors would follow and just make up a new set of excuses as to why the new site isn’t right either. What most of these people really want is a blanket ban on Islam.

  24. sam says:

    @JKB

    “Yes, Palin spoke in error about the First Amendment but what should we do about those with advanced degrees in law from supposed elite schools , in positions where their day to day job is to properly executed the Constitutional provisions and still they are ignorant of or willfully ignoring the Constitution.”

    Why, we impeach them of course. C’mon now, that’s what you’d like, right?

  25. Franklin says:

    Franklin, please quote where Palin has ever stated she is against the building of any Mosque?

    That’s not what I said, although my sentence is admittedly ambiguous. Palin doesn’t understand the Constitution. Neither do the nuts who are opposed to any mosque anywhere. Clear? You will never find me intentionally lying.

  26. Franklin says:

    Franklin;
    B.O. is on the zoning board?
    B.O. used the words “right to build”
    Being “in accordance with local laws and ordinances” does not guarantee a permit ,therefore the permit is a priviledge , granted outside the purview of resident Obama, and not a “right”.
    This sounds like a lot of semantics to make a point…

    From you or from me? Should I not refer to Constitutional rights as ‘legal’ rights? If not, my mistake. Obama was clearly addressing the Constitutional rights, not building permits. I thought we all knew this.

    Maybe I should re-write that whole post to make it more clear. Here’s a somewhat more concise version: “Some people don’t understand the 1st Amendment, and it’s apparently impossible to teach them.”

  27. floyd says:

    “”Just exactly what “short sighted political gain” did Barack Obama receive for his comments?””
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    T.P.;
    He was sucking up to his base at a Ramadon dinner which he hosted at the White House.
    I’m guessing you think his every move would be smart or make sense?
    I said…. “because of the venue and for short sighted political gain.”

    You decide if if it worked, maybe he impressed those he wanted to impress, or maybe it was a faux pas.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    .”” I just realized that B.O. is your super secret short hand “”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Super secret?, I was counting on those of average intelligence to see right through it.

    If you think that using B.O.’s initials is derogatory shorthand? …Ask “W” ?

    “Newt” hardly needs a comical moniker.

    Read the rest of my comment … If you try, I’m sure you’ll get it equally well ! [LOL]

  28. floyd says:

    Franklin;
    From me of course.

    There is, apparently, no constitutional “right ” to building permits.
    I do not see your defense of B.O.’s commentary in this quote…

    “That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances,”
    [not so clearly, considering his credentials]

    No “rights” were involved, let alone violated.
    Please read the rest of my comment in tacit support of the “Burlington coat factory conversion”.

    As for your more succinct version,… I wholeheartedly agree.

  29. tom p says:

    >>>T.P.;
    He was sucking up to his base at a Ramadon dinner which he hosted at the White House.<<>>If you think that using B.O.’s initials is derogatory shorthand? …Ask “W” ?<<<

    No Floyd, I don't think it is derogatory (funny that you might think some one would) but here, I will spell it out for you: I could not help notice how you thought BO was "pandering" to his base (all 30% of it) with his comments but NG, SP, MR, RP, JL, or HR (not to mention NP or HD) are not pandering to the 70% of Americans who disagree with BO.

    And I am wondering, exactly what political benefit does Barack Obama get out of pissing off 70% of America? (truth: there are a # of these people who think BO was absolutely correct in what he said, but that is a distinction many would miss)(not necessarily you, Floyd)

  30. floyd says:

    No Floyd, I don’t think it is derogatory (funny that you might think some one would) but here, I will spell it out for you: I could not help notice how you thought BO was “pandering” to his base (all 30% of it) with his comments but NG, SP, MR, RP, JL, or HR (not to mention NP or HD) are not pandering to the 70% of Americans who disagree with BO.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Of course it’s funny , since I doubt that I have ever said that I thought any given politician was not in the business of pandering with every syllable.

    Truth: there are a # of people who think BO would be absolutely correct in ANYTHING he might say. Consider, that cult of personality thing.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Question… If you did not think that the use of initials was meant to be derogatory then what does all this mean…

    “”Oooops. My bad. I just realized that B.O. is your super secret short hand for Newt Gingrich… or is it Sarah Palin? No no no, you mean Marco Rubio? Rand Paul? Joe Lieberman? HARRY REID!!!””
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Too things were clear from the start….
    1] It was clear to whom the initials “B.O.” referred
    2] It was clear that it showed at least mild contempt. [LOL]

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    In response to your wondering, I reiterate….
    I’m guessing you think his every move would be smart or make sense?
    I said…. “because of the venue and for short sighted political gain.”

    You decide if it worked, maybe he impressed those he wanted to impress, or maybe it was a faux pas?

    It is my fervent “hope for change” that he continues …” pissing off 70% of America”

  31. RWB says:

    A few weeks ago Palin said something on Fox news about how the constitution says we have a GOD given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Apparently, besides knowing nothing about what the Constitution says or means, she cannot tell the difference between the “Declaration of Independence” and the Constitution. I hope she takes some lessons in American history before we elect her president.

  32. G.A.Phillips says:

    ***And I am wondering, exactly what political benefit does Barack Obama get out of pissing off 70% of America?***

    lol me too, but he sure seems to do it on every major position he takes, not to mention every time he reacts to a fox news story or something he has not read yet like the health care bill, Arizona law, or the U.S. Constitution……

  33. G.A.Phillips says:

    ***I hope she takes some lessons in American history before we elect her president.***

    Just wondering are you a liberal and did you vote for Obama? Or have you had enough of these kind of people being elected?

  34. RWB says:

    Since we have been electing idiots for a while now, I assume we will elect her to keep up with the tradition instead of electing someone like Huckabee who is actually capable. It is interesting that you question whether a conservative or libertarian can recognize an idiot as an idiot if they are wearing conservative camouflage. And no, I do not think people like Palin are actually small government conservatives, they are big government just like Bush 2; they just mis-label the big government agenda they want to push down our throats. It’s too bad the Tea-Party movement is already dead, killed in large part by people like Palin co-opting it.

  35. tom p says:

    >>>Too things were clear from the start….
    1] It was clear to whom the initials “B.O.” referred
    2] It was clear that it showed at least mild contempt. [LOL]<<>In response to your wondering, I reiterate….
    I’m guessing you think his every move would be smart or make sense?<<

    Wow, right over your head, eh Floyd? He did not make any friends with that statement, and seeing as he is a hell of a lot smarter than you (or me) I suspect he knew he wouldn't make any friends…

    But here is a thought for you:

    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES."

    I know, it is a slightly antiquated thought for such times, but maybe, JUST MAYBE…

    He takes those 1st and 14th Amendments seriously? And feels the need to remind people of what they mean? No body who has actually read the Constitution can object to what he said… Can they?

    You DO know what he said… Don't you? You HAVE read the constitution… Haven't you?

  36. floyd says:

    Tom P;
    1]No.
    2]You… maybe?.
    3] Nice thought. hope he understands that “execute” part.[lol]
    4] Principles are eternal.
    5] Maybe he does but it’s not relevant here.
    6] No,[ we do have the first amendment still. And I didn’t accuse him of lying]
    7] Yes I do,
    8] Yes
    9] Your assumption is correct .
    10] Yes.

  37. tom p says:

    Ok Floyd, I know I am not the smartest person in the world, but …

    “1] It was clear to whom the initials “B.O.” referred” (your words)
    “1]No.” (your words)

    >>2]You… maybe?<>3] Nice thought. hope he understands that “execute” part.[lol]
    4] Principles are eternal.
    5] Maybe he does but it’s not relevant here.
    6] No,[ we do have the first amendment still. And I didn’t accuse him of lying]
    7] Yes I do,
    8] Yes
    9] Your assumption is correct .
    10] Yes.<<

    Floyd, I know it takes a little bit of work, but would you actually refer to something I have said so I can refute it or admit you are right?
    .
    I would appreciate it, tom.

  38. tom p says:

    OK… that came out as clear as mud (sorry Floyd) Let me simplify: What part of what Barack Obama said, do you find objectionable?

  39. floyd says:

    Sorry Tom, but there are ten responses to ten points in order, and numbered .
    That’s way more than your selective responses.

    Sorry about the confusion …here let me help…

    1] Wow, right over your head, eh Floyd?

    ,2] and seeing as he is a hell of a lot smarter than you (or me) I suspect he knew he wouldn’t make any friends…

    3]But here is a thought for you:

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.”

    4]I know, it is a slightly antiquated thought for such times, but maybe, JUST MAYBE…

    5] He takes those 1st and 14th Amendments seriously,and feels the need to remind people of what they mean?

    [6]Nobody who has actually read the Constitution can object to what he said… Can they?

    7]You DO know what he said…

    8] Don’t you?

    9]You HAVE read the constitution…

    10] Haven’t you?

    1]No.
    2]You… maybe?.
    3] Nice thought. hope he understands that “execute” part.[lol]
    4] Principles are eternal.
    5] Maybe he does but it’s not relevant here.
    6] No,[ we do have the first amendment still. And I didn’t accuse him of lying]
    7] Yes I do,
    8] Yes
    9] Your assumption is correct .
    10] Yes.

    Actually maybe 7&8 and 9&10 could have been one number each I suppose.

  40. floyd says:

    tom p says:
    Thursday, August 19, 2010 at 21:27
    OK… that came out as clear as mud (sorry Floyd) Let me simplify: What part of what Barack Obama said, do you find objectionable?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Now, there is only one question here with one answer…. None of it.

    Explanation,
    I find his pandering to be irrelevant and uncalled for, competent or otherwise.
    So far, no Constitutional rights have been violated or even threatened, and zoning is the purview of the Burrough in which the permits are issued.

  41. floyd says:

    That’s Borough , not Burrough… my bad.

  42. Juneau: says:

    The liberal’s Palin obsession continues. Interesting statement from Mataconis;

    “Of course, Schlessinger was not fired for that rant and her decision to leave radio is entirely a voluntary one so, you know, the First Amendment doesn’t really apply here.”

    Only a person who thinks their readers are fools would ignore the timing here and say that the two events are not related. Apparently, many of the commenters buy his statement, so perhaps Mataconis’ assessment was correct.

  43. anjin-san says:

    > The liberal’s Palin obsession continues.

    Responding to a controversial statement by a prominent celebrity constitutes “obsession”?

    Take a day off Juneau, you are giving simpletons a bad name…

  44. G.A.Phillips says:

    ***and seeing as he is a hell of a lot smarter than you***

    lol you think Obama is smarter then Floyd, hahahaha…………….

    Dude… hahahahaha……..

  45. sam says:

    @Doug

    “Of course, Schlessinger was not fired for that rant and her decision to leave radio is entirely a voluntary one so, you know, the First Amendment doesn’t really apply here.”

    @Icechild, applying his well-honed reading noncomprehension skills:

    “Only a person who thinks their readers are fools would ignore the timing here and say that the two events are not related.”

    Where in that does Doug assert the rant and the resignation are not related? Show of hands:
    How many think that Doug’s statement is about the bogus claim of a First Amendment violation (since she resigned voluntarily and there was no gubmint involvement — which would be the only way the First Amendment could come into play)?

  46. anjin-san says:

    It is not possible for this to be a fist amendment issue, and the fact that some assert it is simply proves they do not understand the constitution. Freedom of speech does not include the right to say anything you wish on a radio station that you do not own while you are working for somebody else.

  47. floyd says:

    Anjin-san;
    Now I know it was just a typo,but…..
    .
    “”It is not possible for this to be a fist amendment issue””

    Well maybe it is …. reading some of the comments above!!

    Thanks for the unintended chuckle!!

  48. matt says:

    Look this is no different from a worker at McDonalds getting fired because they cursed at someone…