Although I do not agree with Phil Robertson’s remarks about the LGBT+ community, I think that his First Amendment rights were violated. Robertson should not have been suspended from the show because the First Amendment always protects political and social commentary. In my opinion, Robertson was just providing his personal opinion/commentary on a social issue and should have had the right to say whatever he wanted without facing any repercussions. I think that this case had been blown out of proportion because he was a person with a large audience and influence. I assume that had he said something positive about the LGBT+ community, that despite some conservative viewers’ likely backlash, that he would have still continued to be on the show. I think that the Democratic political climate that America had been in at the time likely influenced what people and companies viewed as hazardous territory to enter with regards to speech. In addition, the First Amendment allows people to say what they desire about their religion as “congress shall make no law…show more content… Had Robertson been a minor actor on the show, I do not believe that A&E would have responded the same way. They most likely would have released a statement and continued with the show. A&E must have been extremely worried about its reputation and audience disappearing, that it failed to thoroughly consider Robertson’s rights in an effort to do what seemed correct immediately following the situation. Linking back to the idea of an audience, the First Amendment usually protects commercial speech, which according to the lecture, is any effort to convince somebody to buy or to do something. In this case, this is what Robertson had been doing. He was stating his opinion, but ultimately advertising or using his platform to promote Catholicism and animosity towards
