A little bit of hypocrisy never hurt a political movement

Some months ago, Dr. Laura Schlessinger decided not to renew the contract for her syndicated radio show, after backlash to her use of a particular racial epithet in response to a Black caller's query. At the time, I defended her, and specifically the notion that we, as citizens, shouldn't take actions (e.g. boycotts or lawsuits) in order to impinge the First Amendment Rights of others. I do believe that deliberately and continually undermining the right of others, diminishes our own, personal liberty.

I didn't realize at the time, that from then on, some on the right would call foul whenever some pundit lost their soapbox ─ as happened with Juan Williams, formerly of NPR, now of Fox ─ more recently to Dan Fagan, an Alaskan radio commentator, currently suspended for allegedly advocating some potentially illegal electioneering scheme. Sarah Palin commented via a note on facebook, redacted below, full text here:

Yesterday [10/28/2010], Lisa Murkowski’s hired guns threatened radio host Dan Fagan, and more importantly, the station that airs Fagan’s show, with legal action for allegedly illegal “electioneering.” The station, unlike Murkowski, who is flush with millions of dollars from vested corporate interests, does not have a budget for a legal defense. So it did what any small market station would do when threatened by Beltway lawyers charging $500 to $1000 an hour – they pulled Dan Fagan off the air.

Does all this sound heavy handed? It is. It is an interference with Dan Fagan’s constitutional right to free speech. [...]

[...]

Individuals like Dan Fagan have a fundamental right to speak their minds without threats from the incumbent Senator from Alaska. [...]

[...]

- Sarah Palin

Fagan, had suggested that people register to be write-in candidates, and apparently offered some sort of prize for those who did so and whose name was similar to Incumbant Senator and write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski ─ voters were allowed, upon request, to view a list of write-in candidates, the flood of late registrants was a strategy to muddy the waters ─ Legally: questionable ─ Ethically: darkest-gray.

John Tracy, a media buyer for Murkowski's campaign, contacted the local radio station and suggested that what Fagan had been saying on air was of questionable legality. It's not clear that an explicit threat of personal lawsuit was made by Tracy, but if what Fagan was advocating on air was illegal, the potential ramifications for the station go beyond any legal threat the Murkowski camp may have made: Alaska's Attorney General and Election Agencies would have reason to investigate such allegations.

As to Juan Williams, according to Vivian Schiller, he lost his job because "he had several times in the past violated our news code of ethics with things that he had said on other people’s air." He wasn't fired in a vacuum or in some vain attempt to rid him of his right to speech. Yet, Fox News and several prominent Republicans used the incident to grandstand by calling for a cessation of federal funding to NPR: seems the unbiased reporting of facts, shows a strong liberal bent.

Most Americans work as "at will" employees, some are fortunate to work under union or contract protection, but the right to employment is not constitutionally guaranteed nor does the First Amendment secure the right to a permanent venue for speech. For the conservatives to apparently argue constitutional protection, in opposition to a firing or suspension, while simultaneously advocating the notion of Originalism ─ as the best and truest way of interpreting the Constitution ─ is innately hypocritical. Arguing that business doesn't have the right to voluntarily halt production on something, based on adverse public reaction or any other grounds, is nonsensical, but doing so while otherwise advocating against government regulations of business, is another sign of hypocrisy.