Ted Cruz thinks Duck Dynasty star has a First Amendment right to be on reality TV

[Bjorn Against]

Ted Cruz thinks Duck Dynasty star has a First Amendment right to be on reality TV
By David Edwards
Thursday, December 19, 2013 15:26 EST

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Thursday called on television network A&E to return Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson to his television show, citing “free speech” and “religious liberty” rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

After A&E suspended Robertson for comparing homosexuality to bestiality, Cruz took to Facebook to defend the Duck Commander company founder.

“Free speech matters,” Cruz wrote. “If you believe in free speech or religious liberty, you should be deeply dismayed over the treatment of Phil Robertson. Phil expressed his personal views and his own religious faith; for that, he was suspended from his job.”

“In a free society, anyone is free to disagree with him–but the mainstream media should not behave as the thought police censoring the views with which they disagree,” he continued. “And, as PC enforcers often forget, tolerance is a two-way street.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/19/ted-cruz-thinks-duck-dynasty-star-has-a-first-amendment-right-to-be-on-reality-tv/

I demand a multimillion dollar contract for my own reality TV show, if I do not receive it my First Amendment rights are clearly being violated.

[muntrv]

1. Oh Teddy! Phil is being censored by a PRIVATE CORPORATION, not government.

Phil is being treated the same as the Dixie Chicks.

[LisaLynne]

2. Me, too!! Me, too!!!

I mean, this is just ... so stupid. Everyone has the right to their opinion, but not to be free from consequences. If I went to work tomorrow and started tossing around a bunch of racial slurs, I would be (rightly) fired on the freaking spot. Do these people really not understand this?

[giftedgirl77]

3. Ted Cruz thinks he is starring in his own

reality show as well. These idiots amaze me when the convolute free speech & an employers reactions to said speech.

[arcane1]

5. Sadly, people stupid enough to elect him are stupid enough to believe him n/t

[giftedgirl77]

8. It's disturbing isn't it?

Isn't the guy a lawyer also? I think he just talks out of his ass for the attention, but he can't possibly think the majority of the country is as dumb as his constituents.

[arcane1]

10. I suspect that's the case with many (but not all) of them

They know which buzz-words to use, and have contempt for the rubes that take them seriously.

[giftedgirl77]

13. Ugh, it's so tiresome

and very pathetic.

[Mike Daniels]

27. He's a lawyer and since he was Ivy League I'm pretty sure he know what the 1st Amendment says

However, given that the Tea Party wing seems to thrive on a sense of perpetual victimization he knows that the key to success is for someone to lead them to believe their "rights" are being trampled.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

4. This worthless, stupid fuck is a United States Senator.

That's right, he's one of the august, revered one hundred members of our upper legislative body. And this pile of feeble hatred doesn't have a second grader's understanding of the First Amendment.

A&E is not the government, and therefore they cannot have made a law abridging free speech. Go away, submoron.

[Liberal_Dog]

12. Plus He Has Argued Cases Before The Supreme Court

[indepat]

6. Gotta' admit: Senator Ted Cruz has some finely-honed reasoning skills. Nonetheless, I'm going

to restrain my 1st Amendment rights by not telling him what a total ass he seems.

[libodem]

7. Fuck you very much, Ted

[img][/img]

[TeamPooka]

19. Bazinga!

[JaneyVee]

16. LOL. Who cares if he offended anyone? ADVERTISERS, that's who.

It's all about the $$$$$$$$. And it's not liberals who play the victim card, it's the "pussitits" conservatives.

[NuclearDem]

11. What happened to supporting the free market?

A company made a decision that was in its best interests. Thought a free marketeer like Cruz would like that

[Deep13]

15. You're overlooking that this Duck guy is a white Christian male. nt

[NuclearDem]

20. Oh damn, silly me!

[Deep13]

14. That's crazy talk!

No one on that show is a "star."

While SCOTUS does not consider the 1st Am. to apply to so-called private corporations, I do not believe the issue is so clear cut. Unlike partnerships and sole proprietorships, state law grants creates corporations and grants them perpetual existence and immunity from liability for the owners. I think corporations are at least quasi-governmental entities answerable to the Constitution. Put another way, if the state cannot penalize someone from free speech, how can it make a corporation that can?

And to what degree can one surrender free speech rights by contract? Presumably, this guy's contract allows the show to fire him if he says offensive things (although one wonders why they did not just edit that remark out).

Generally, one cannot piss off the boss's customers and hope to remain employed, so I don't have much sympathy for this guy. Still, I am really reticent to concede that 1. free speech only exists within the pretty narrow limits of the 1st Amendment and that 2. corporations--especially ones that operate on public frequencies--are "private" for Constitutional law purposes.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

17. Corporations don't write laws

The First is pretty clear about who it applies to. It applies to lawmakers.

[Deep13]

22. First, did you really write "Corporations don't write laws?"

We all know that in fact they do.

Can Congress or the state create a corporation for the purpose of of searching every home in a city for anything illegal with the purpose of using it in a criminal prosecution? May the govt. empower such a corporation with the ability to perform summary executions on supposed offenders? If not, why not if not for violations of Constitutional criminal defense rights, including unreasonable searches and seizures.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

26. Yes, that's exactly what I wrote, and I meant it.

I'm well aware that corporate lobbyists get laws written the way they want them written. It's still LAWMAKERS who get the legislation passed. Therefore, these lawmakers in government, and other government entities, cannot abridge the right to free speech. But those corporations, even the scummy ones who do their worst with lobbying, cannot by definition abridge free speech. You can test this by telling the CEO of the company you work for to fuck off. You'll very likely be fired with your First Amendment rights completely intact, unmolested by the government, but terminated by the private employer who is under no such restrictions.

[okaawhatever]

28. His comments were not made on the tv show, they were made in an interview with GQ magazine

so no, the corporation didn't have the option of editing them out. Also, when you talk about signing away your free speech rights in a contract you're assuming he lost his free speech rights. He didn't. The A & E network did not prohibit the article from being published. The A & E contract is about profits and protecting and defining a business relationship. What is your alternative? Should A & E be forced to air his shows and lose money? They only aired the show for the purpose of making money. Does Phil Robertson have a contractual right to ignore his behavior clause and force A & E to pay him now that he's cost them money? Sorry, this doesn't have anything to do with free speech. The network didn't stop him from speaking, he wasn't censored.

[Beaverhausen]

18. How the fuck did he become a US senator?

My god he's an ignorant fool.

[Kingofalldems]

21. They want their idiot followers to believe Obama is censoring these phonies.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

24. "Obama!!!!! Tell your Kenyan overlords this is AMERICA and we want to hate on the GAYS!!!

without sensership!!!11"

[Pretzel_Warrior]

23. what does he know about The Bill of Rights? He's Cuban-Canadian. Besides,

he's a Republican. take away 20 IQ points. And he's a Republican Senator. Take away another 30 IQ points.

[nyquil_man]

25. Phil Robertson's views are being censored?

That's odd; I could have sworn the media's been repeating them over and over again.

[Gothmog]

29. The First Amendment only applies to State Actors

Unless a governmental entity is doing the censorship, the First Amendment does not apply. Here the TV network is free to take whatever steps they want and there is no violation of the First Amendment. This is basic constitutional law. Here is a brief explanation of this requirement from Cornell Law School http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/state_action_requirement

The state action requirement stems from the fact that the constitutional amendments which protect individual rights (especially the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment) are mostly phrased as prohibitions against government action. For example, the First Amendment states that “[c]ongress shall make no law” infringing upon the freedoms of speech and religion. Because of this requirement, it is impossible for private parties (citizens or corporations) to violate these amendments, and all lawsuits alleging constitutional violations of this type must show how the government (state or federal) was responsible for the violation of their rights. This is referred to as the state action requirement.

[jmowreader]

30. So what Ted is saying...

is the fiduciary duty of a corporation to its shareholders (because you just know if they kept Mr. Robertson on the air, us hate-filled liberals would have launched boycotts of every company that advertises on A&E until they ditched Man-on-Dog 2013) takes a back seat to the right of one man to spew hateful crap.