A & E: The Right To Suspend Phil Robertson

A & E has every right to suspend Phil Robertson for his heinous remarks. Phil Robertson was a cast member on the hit reality television show, Duck Dynasty. In December of 2013 Robertson conducted an interview with GQ, where he made inappropriate comments regarding the LGBTQ+ community and Black Americans. Shortly after the interview went public, A&E (the streaming service that owned Duck Dynasty), suspended him for his comments. This caused an uproar of support and criticism for A & E. With the understanding of the First Amendment, the extent of the comments and what rights the company has, it is clear that A & E is legal in their decision. While many conservatives claimed this was a direct violation of the First Amendment, others suggested

The First Amendment of the Constitution states that, “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.” (Constitution, 1789). Considering the circumstances of this suspension, freedom of speech will be solely talked about, since it directly is the argument at hand.The Constitution clearly states how everyone has freedom of speech, however not all speech is protected by this amendment. As mentioned in class lectures, false information, political expression that promotes hate and hate speech are some expressions that are illegal and could lead to further consequences. The idea of hate speech can be complicated to prove it is described as, “hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group.”(American Library Association Ward,

Although it is unclear if Roberston’s comments are considered “hate speech”, A & E still had the power to suspend him from his position. According to David J. Oberly, a leader of a multi-disciplinary firm, “as the First Amendment only protects individuals from government suppression of free speech.”(Oblery, The Cost of Free Speech 2018). It is essential to understand that this amendment only covers government influencers and not private organizations, especially ones that hire and employ individuals. Ultimately, “the First Amendment does not provide employees with protection from discipline taken by their private sector employers in response to an employee’s unappreciated expression of public speech”(Oblery, The Cost of Free Speech 2018). It is best to understand that employers are consistently representing the companies they work for, whether they are on the clock or not. Therefore, companies deserve the right to manage what their employees are saying and if it aligns with the company's morals and