Although Phil Robertson conducted an anti-gay rant and was suspended by A&E from the show Duck Dynasty, his First Amendment rights were not violated. The beginning part of the First Amendment declares that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech.” Therefore, due to the fact that there are no laws that prohibit speech or religion, A&E did not technically violate Robertson’s First Amendment rights with his suspension from the show.
Although A&E had the right to suspend Robertson, I believe it was wrong as it went against the intention of the First Amendment which is to protect people and allow them to publicly say or do what they would like without penalty. In my opinion, Robertson was just providing his personal opinion/commentary on a social issue and should have been able to say what he wanted without facing repercussions. I think that this case had been blown out of proportion because Robertson had been on a popular television…show more content… A&E must have been extremely worried that if they allowed Robertson to continue on the show, that the world would believe that the company consists of homophobic individuals. A&E made the decision to suspend Robertson as they were concerned about their reputation, potential backlash, and the possibility of their audience disappearing, that it failed to thoroughly consider Robertson in an effort to do what seemed correct immediately following the
