The recent controversy initiated by radio shock jock host Don Imus's deplorable depiction of the Rutgers University Women's Basketball Team has brought on waves of protest by many people from a wide spectrum of political and social persuasions. Political blogs and newspapers all over our country have been filled with editorials and letters either condemning him for his blatantly racist remark or supporting his "Constitutional Right" of free speech. Some writers have both condemned his remarks AND supported his right to freely express himself. So do I.

Having said that, the purpose of this article is not to further condemn Imus or his vulgar statement that he made on his radio show. He did a fine job of that himself!

What I wish to address is the abysmal misunderstanding and ignorance of many Americans in regards to exactly what the First Amendment to the United States Constitution actually says and means about our freedom of speech in America.

Many letters and blogs that I've read make the absurd accusation that Imus's right to free speech has been violated because his show was dropped by MSNBC and that he was fired by CBS Radio. Many writers have said that the action of those two corporations flies in the face of and are in violation of the First Amendment. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The first Amendment 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."
It means exactly what it says. CONGRESS, (the legislative branch of our government), shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech. In fact, state and local governments were perfectly free to and in some cases did regulate the speech of their citizens until the ratification of the the 14th Amendment in 1868. The first paragraph of that Amendment says the following:

"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Federal Courts have correctly ruled that the phrase in that paragraph, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" and this phrase in that paragraph "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." also both mean exactly what they say.

So, the First Amendment prohibits the United States Congress from passing any laws that abridge the freedom of speech of the citizens. By virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, that same prohibition has been extended to state and local governments as well. Neither of those two amendments has any bearing whatsoever on the right of private businesses or corporations to regulate speech within their companies.

For example: I'm free to write this editorial without any interference from any federal, state or local government within the United States. However, no newspapers or websites are required to publish my editorial. If they choose not to do so they have not violated my First nor Fourteenth Amendments rights. In fact, they are perfectly within their rights to refuse to print it. If I don't like their decision I can start a newspaper or a website and publish it myself.

Likewise, a private company has every right to regulate the speech of their employees while they're at work. A private company can prohibit you from talking about religion, politics or your favorite movie while you are at work. They have the right to fire you if you say things that reflect badly on the company when you're at work or even when you're not at work.

One final example: A printing company that prints posters, flyers, etc. has the right to refuse to print anything that they deem to be objectionable. If someone came into that printing shop and wanted 500 copies of the old nursery rhyme "Mary Had A Little Lamb", and the owner of the printing shop finds that to be offensive, he is under no Constitutional obligation to print it. On the other hand, the person that wants the 500 copies printed is free to go out and purchase a printing machine and print the copies if they wish.

During the recent Don Imus flap, the First Amendment worked perfectly. Imus exercised his right to free speech without any interference from the government. People who were offended exercised their free speech rights by protesting. The sponsors of his show, who pulled their advertisements, and CBS and MSNBC who fired him and cancelled his show, exercised their First Amendment rights by doing so. People who don't agree with the decision of the sponsors to pull their ads or with the decision of CBS and MSNBC to give Imus the ax, of course, can freely voice their disapproval by not buying the products of the advertisers and not tuning in to those two networks. All of this has happened without any governmental involvement at all, exactly as the Framers of the Constitution intended.

Copyright 2007
By Stephen Edwards
All rights reserved