So after days of reading about protests for and against Phil Robertson's suspension for his recent rant against homosexuality, I finally relented and read some of the Duck Dynasty star's infamous remarks. I was initially going to stay out of it because I don't care for reality TV, neither does it interest me when celebrities get themselves into trouble with thoughtless statements such as Robertson's. But then people started bringing the First Amendment into the discussion.
Coming from a patriotic family, I am an ardent proponent of the First Amendment. And truth be told, I sometimes find it difficult to support someone's First Amendment rights when they say or do something I otherwise disagree with. But free speech is free speech, and it works both ways. The First Amendment is a true and moral principle that should not be trifled with.
At the same time, as a writer, I get quite irritated when people loosely throw around a word or phrase without quite understanding its actual meaning. Now I've come to accept that words like "literally," "irony," and "further" will always be misused by a good portion of the population. But when vital principles like the First Amendment appear to be misused, I feel inclined to speak up.
So what about Phil Robertson's case? Is the First Amendment being trivialized by one side, or is it being misused by the other? I certainly wasn't about to form my own opinion without reading his actual comments, so I finally googled it. When asked what Robertson considered sinful, this was the response that led to his suspension:
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. (Paraphrasing Corinthians) Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
From my perspective, that quote does not target homosexual behavior. Neither does it compare homosexuality with bestiality, as many critics claim. They are just two of the many behaviors that Robertson lists as sinful. But I can see why people would take it that way. His use of the phrase "morph out from there" implies that homosexuality ultimately leads to those other behaviors. I have mixed feelings about such an inference. On one hand, I find the inference hypocritical because the phrase "morph out from there" is just a poor substitute for "go from there," and many of us misuse that phrase on a regular basis. We often use it not just to suggest a cause-effect relationship, but also to indicate our own thought process while expressing ourselves. We're basically thinking out loud.
But on the other hand, when we communicate with an audience, we are responsible for expressing our point effectively. If we choose our words poorly, we cannot blame our audience for misunderstanding us. This is why I value effective communication, as ineffective communication can have drastic consequences. When we think of the saying "The pen is mightier than the sword," we tend to look at it only one way. But just like words can be more persuasive than violence, they can also be more deadly.
Now if A&E were a Government entity, my mixed feelings would be significant. If Robertson meant to identify homosexuality as a gateway sin, he was targeting a group in front of millions of people, and his words come dangerously close to inciting action against that group. Such behavior is not protected by the First Amendment. But if Robertson was simply expressing himself poorly--and I believe he was--then he was merely listing his religious beliefs, which are protected by the First Amendment. While he has had a lot more to say about homosexuality in the past, those past comments aren't what got him suspended.
But because A&E is not a Government entity, all of that is irrelevant. As a former church leader of mine recently observed, freedom of speech "was put in place to protect us from being punished by the Government for speaking out against the Government...it doesn't protect us from the consequences of our publicly-stated opinions in regard to other private parties."
In other words, the First Amendment doesn't apply here, as this issue involves a private employer legally using its own discretion regarding the behavior of one of its employees. While there is such thing as wrongful termination, I don't think that applies here either. If an employer can show that an employee's conduct is hurting their business, that is justifiable grounds for termination. The employer does not have to tolerate such behavior just because it is guided by the employee's personal beliefs.
So no, no matter how you spin it, Robertson's suspension is not a violation of the First Amendment.
When we misuse and overuse a principle as vital as the First Amendment, we eventually weaken its integrity. That is why those who care about it as much as I do should insist upon its correct application even if its incorrect application works in their favor. When we allow the end to justify the means, we make ourselves no better than the tyranny the First Amendment was intended to prevent.
No comments:
Post a Comment