THE HEAD DUCK'S WOUNDS WERE SELF-INFLICTED

Neither Sarah Palin nor Bobby Jindal has ever been accused of being a constitutional expert, and their comments in the wake of the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty/A&E dust-up provide no new evidence that would justify such a charge.

Predictably, both of them---along with the vast majority of the GOP Right, the Tea Party Right and the Christian Right---couched their indignation in First Amendment terms.  Jindal opined that "this is a free country and everyone is entitled to express their views." Palin's pander consisted of a verbal selfie---the former half-governor described herself as "a freedom of speech kind of gal"---and her usual hyperbolic variation on a theme:  "Freedom of speech is an endangered species."

Jindal is correct insofar as he affirms the right of every American "to express their views."  That is, indeed, a First Amendment guarantee and protection---though it does come with reasonable conditions attached.  However, his insinuation that the First Amendment guarantees and protects the patriarch of the Duck Commander crowd---or anyone else---from consequences that may result from his expression of particular views represents a false and misleading understanding of what The Founders intended.  Were there a law against pandering to ignorance, he would have committed an indictable offense.

Phil Robertson was entitled by the First Amendment to freely express his opinions regarding homosexuality and homosexuals as well as his opinions per the relative happiness/unhappiness of African-Americans during the Jim Crow period. And he was entitled by the First Amendment to do so without fear that he would suffer consequences/retribution from any governmental entity.

That he freely expressed those opinions and suffered no consequence or injury as a result of a governmental action is proof enough that he enjoyed all of the rights and protections guaranteed him by the First Amendment.

But that is where those guaranteed "rights and protections" come to an end.  Mr. Robertson had/has no right to expect that the Constitution's protections extend to the punitive actions of a private entity such as A&E---punitive actions taken as a consequence of his free expression.  Indeed, a private enterprise such as A&E has every right to protect its interests and the interests of its shareholders from the damage that might be done to its reputation/brand/bottom-line by Mr. Robertson's exercise of his right to free speech.

It is interesting that Mr. Jindal and unsurprising that Ms. Palin were silent when, in recent weeks, both Alec Baldwin and Martin Bashir were essentially fired by MSNBC for comments made off-air (Baldwin) and on-air (Bashir).  They both, at that time, seemed to understand that one's freedom to express his/her opinions does not exempt him/her from all consequence---indeed, Ms. Palin hypocritically called for MSNBC to take action against Mr. Bashir.

If anything, this is a free market matter---A&E is simply exercising its right to take a corporate action intended to protect itself and its spread sheets.  For Mr. Jindal and Ms. Palin to imply that the government should perhaps step in and force a corporation to rescind such an action would seem contrary to their almost spiritual allegiance to free and unfettered---by government intervention and/or regulation---markets.

Finally, as to Ms. Palin's usual demagoguery about "free speech being an endangered species," the incident involving Mr. Robertson is evidence enough that she is wrong, wrong, wrong and that free expression is alive and well in our country. After all, both the Chief Duck and A&E have been able, without fear of being muzzled by the government, to freely and uncompromisingly express their views and opinions---both of them!  Which is exactly the freedom guaranteed to us and protected for us by the Constitution.