The right to free speech does not include the right to be immune from its effects. The government is enjoined from administering “punishment” for speaking out, but the people are not.
I see it this way: If we are not allowed to react strongly (or weakly, for that matter) to Letterman’s offensiveness, then we have no right to free speech ourselves. If “free speech” means we cannot be discerning in our tastes - including the right to protest loudly and try to get an offensive boor fired - then the first amendment is truly dead.
>> The right to free speech does not include the right to be immune from its effects. The government is enjoined from administering “punishment” for speaking out, but the people are not.
Constitutionally speaking, you are correct. I simply do not believe that David Letterman should be forced to surrender his livelihood because of a tasteless joke (any more than I believe that people should be fired for minor comments that have now been deemed “workplace harassment”).
We have the right to not watch — a right which I will employ. But, I will not demand his head on a platter for this.
I question the level of sensitivity that seems to have infected conservatism. We have taken a page from the liberal playbook that we should’ve left alone. Being a whiner is not appealing, and is not conservative. Let them be the ones who get their panties in a bunch over the words of a goofy comedian.
Liberal oversensitivity is not one of their more appealing characteristics. Why would I want to emulate? Sticks and stones, ladies and gentlemen ...
SnakeDoc