Does Freedom of Speech Mean Sponsoring This Guy?
Recently comedian Bill Maher
attacked liberals for boycotting companies that advertise on conservative Rush Limbaugh’s radio show. He compared them to the Islamic “bullies” who assailed the French magazine Charlie Hebdo for its satirical cartoons. Any boycotter was “not even a proper liberal because you don’t get free speech,” he said. “You’re just a baby who can’t stand to live in a world where you hear things that upset you.”
But comparing a boycotter to a censor confuses our freedom of speech with property rights. Withholding your property, i.e., money from companies that support Limbaugh is not the same as saying Limbaugh has no right to speak. For Maher to claim otherwise is to align himself with the corporate lobbyists’ side in the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. That decision, which Maher often lambasts, equated corporate political donations with constitutionally-protected speech.
That’s not to say property doesn’t influence speech. It does, immensely, but often in ways antithetical to liberal beliefs. This is why having the power to boycott is essential. It is one of the only means for liberals to combat the forces behind the Citizens United decision.
Unfortunately, Maher appears to be under the delusion that we live in a country where you can say whatever you want wherever you want. But the reality is property rights generally take precedence over the First Amendment. If you go to work as a cashier at Hobby Lobby with a “Fuck Mitt Romney” tattoo on your forehead, the company has every legal right to expel you from the premises as you’re on its private property. That’s despite the fact that your statement is constitutionally protected.
On a more serious note, if you’re seeking to form a union, your employer can severely restrict what you can say to your coworkers and where you can distribute union literature on company premises. Ask anyone trying to organize Wal-Mart’s employees about this.
The influence on speech by commercial interests is pervasive. As Maher should know, a company’s property rights extend far beyond the confines of its physical locale. Intellectual property, trademark, libel and copyright laws effectively silence liberal critics and artists all the time. You can’t even display the logo or trademark of a company on a TV show or movie without getting its permission first.
The irony is while printing a cartoon in a newspaper depicting an Islamic terrorist beheading Mohammed is legal in the U.S., printing a poster that says “Enjoy Cocaine” with Coca Cola’s logo on it is not. Coca Cola won a suit enjoining the production of that poster in 1972.
Nor do corporate interests need to use the law to silence critics. Media outlets are owned by corporations and depend on their advertising dollars to survive. Contrary to conservative belief, the so-called liberal media bias is quite the opposite. There is by default a conservative pro-business one because of this economic dependence. Publishers and television executives are terrified of losing advertising dollars by offending any potential sponsors with a negative story.
As a journalist, I’ve witnessed this bias firsthand. I can’t count the number of times an editor has massaged or excised entirely language from one of my stories to avoid incurring the wrath of one of our sponsors or losing paid subscribers with different political beliefs.
I’m not alone in this experience. According to a 2000 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center of 300 journalists and news executives, some 41% said they practice self-censorship with stories, either softening the tone of their stories or not doing them at all. Their employer’s commercial and advertising interests were cited as primary reasons.
Such corporate hegemony can be fought with boycotts. Companies are so focused on their bottom line every quarter they can’t afford to lose even 10% of their revenues because of liberal activists. Any sales downturn crashes their stock. Now imagine what activists could do if they convinced every Democrat not to buy bouquets from 1-800-Flowers on Valentine’s Day because it advertises on Limbaugh’s show.
Sadly, there is no place in America where our freedom of speech is absolute. Even in a public park or your own house you can be arrested for disturbing the peace, terroristic threats, vagrancy or lewdness if you say the wrong things too loudly. If the government feels threatened by your message, it can lock you up or evict you from its property. The Occupy Wall Street protestors know about this.
But no right is more inalienably American than that of property. Every time we open our wallets we are voting with our dollars and if we choose to deny some of them to Limbaugh’s sponsors that is our priority. I’m fine with him spewing his hate speech in the privacy of his own home. Let him enjoy the same freedom as millions of liberals who can speak but feel they have no influence.