Chick-Fil-A and the 1st Amendment (Why Dan Cathy is no Bigot)

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.

"We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

Those are the words of Chick-Fil-A owner and Georgia native Dan Cathy. It was said in an interview with the Baptist Press where Cathy discussed his values, his business practices and professional philosophy.  All influenced by his faith as he reiterated in another interview.

Under the 1^st Amendment, Cathy has the right to believe and say what he feels. As the owner of a privately owned company, the Constitution protects him from that like it would any of us. As I’ve also written several times on here, however, it doesn’t protect him from backlash as many have done.

Let's Define Freedom of Speech, Shall We

I'm tired of hearing people invoke the 1st Amendment inappropriately. Whenever people say something offensive and people get upset, they bring this up to apparently excuse their behavior. It's a basic misinterpretation of one of the oldest laws in the country.

Dr. Laura Schlessinger's only the latest person to bring this up as a reason. She said she's dealing with the backlash of her rant by quitting because her rights are violated. (And right on cue, Sarah Palin** defends her on Twitter --- apparently saying Nigger several times and being arrogant isn't worse than Rahm Emanuel calling someone a retard)

Instead of tackling what was wrong with Dr. Laura's rant, I'm gonna tackle the bigger problem. The 1st Amendment does guarantee you the right to say whatever BUT it does NOT protect you from the backlash of what you say.

In layman's terms - You can say whatever you want but just be prepared to deal with the consequences. We can't restrict what you do but we can definitely respond to it. Why? Because that's our right too according to that same amendment.

The law would technically allow you to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It'd also allow you to call me out of my name and insult my family. But it won't protect you from the reaction or being at fault.

In layman's terms - It won't protect you from personal accountability. Don't hide behind the Constitution when you say something. A real adult stands behind their words/actions and doesn't use the law as an excuse.

It's so easy yet so many people forget that part of it. They just want the right to say what they want without fear but don't want to accept the responsibility of it. Hide behind the Constitution without realizing it's not gonna save you

Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity/Dr. Laura have the right to speak their mind as much as Keith Olbermann/Rachel Maddow. The Constitution protects that but it doesn't mean you can abuse it for hate speech or stirring up unhealthy rebellion without trouble.

Who knew I'd make a good interpreter of the law. Maybe I should've gone into law school after all. But I'll settle for being a history buff who wants to know the original intent of things and can read for myself.

** (For the record, Sarah [since you aren't a private citizen, you lost your title] Dr. Laura's 1st Amend. rights weren't violated or threatened. She quit BEFORE she was ousted for what she said. Her rights didnt "cease to exist", she chose to forfeit the right to use them in that format. Ignorance is your new best friend after John McCain said "Kick Rocks")

Free Speech Can Pay a Hefty Price

The Perez Hilton-Will.i.am incident made me think about this whole deal a lot more. Besides the mini-altercation between the two parties, it’s also an issue about bloggers running too wild in the name of free speech. Many argue that they can say whatever they want and this is true. But what happens when you cross a line between free speech and decency.

I hate how the culture now gives people a voice to say whatever they want with no responsibility – all in the name of free speech. Go to any message board or gossip site and you’ll see some of the most reckless things said. People hide behind free speech and expect nothing to happen because of that . Legal protection and real–life protection are two different things.

An example: Go to a bar and insult somebody the worst way possible. Technically that’s free speech what you said and if you get a swift beatdown as a result, it’s not the guy’s fault who hit you. You put yourself in that situation and you shouldn’t be mad someone took you out of it with violence. Better example: Go to a gang territory and start challenging people to a fight. Same result. They deserve consequences too for their actions, but you are not completely innocent either.

Free speech has consequences that you better be prepared to deal with. When I decided to start blogging, I knew good and well that my views were going to be on display for everyone to see it. It’s the Faustian deal I made when I started E-TV and I accept that. I’m going to express my views and say whatever I want – but at the same time, I’m going to be responsible and not violate your readership by being reckless with it. You may not disagree but if I get your respect, that’s what matters.

Perez Hilton and his ilk don’t write for respect, they write for attention. They aren’t like the blogs on my roll call or other respectable writers – they’ll deliberately hurt feelings/ruin careers for the sole purpose of their agenda. If we hurt feelings, it’s unintentional (most of the time) - we write to express ourselves, not cause unnecessary feuds.

There a difference between criticism and hate. Criticism is sharing your honest opinion that is well-backed up. You don’t dislike someone or something for no reason. That’s not how writers/critics/bloggers should operate. I know people think it’s easy to get on a computer and type what you feel, but there’s rules to this blogging ish – there’s a difference between critique and blind hate.

Words have tremendous power. If they didn’t, I’d be doing another career instead of journalism and I wouldn’t be blogging. The old mantra of “sticks and stones” was nice when we were kids, but the written/spoken word can make a far greater impact. Consider how people still draw inspiration from books like the Bible (almost 2,000 years old), the Koran, Shakespeare and Homer – do you think hateful speech can’t make just the same impact over time?

This is my issue with Perez Hilton, what he stands for in pop culture and hope that other bloggers take heed. Hilton does do both (as well as report gossip) but his negative tactics overshadow his personal tastes. He doesn’t care about the impact of what he does and he’s racked up quite a few enemies. Same with TMZ – whatever good they do, it’s overshadowed by their negative actions.

In essence it’s journalism ethos of getting a story without its ethics. That’s why they cannot be surprised when someone reacts negatively because when you push buttons, you’ll eventually push the wrong one.Pushing buttons works when it gets to the truth of the matter. Not when it's done for its own sake.

We use free speech to our benefit but sometimes we fail to understand the implications that brings. If you ran your mouth, you better be ready to take that race all the way. It’s advice that we all need to hear.

There are lessons to be learned from this situation between Perez and Will.i.am. and his manager. Words have power and cannot be used like your toys with no regard for what they can do. Yes, this was an extreme situation but how many lives have been impacted by mere words.

Think before you speak. Words we heard as kids but in the name of internet freedom, we tend to forget that our words can be boomerangs and bite us when it returns.