The First is the new Second

If anything positive came out of the Don Imus affair, it is this: the left has finally read the First Amendment.

After the Dixie Chicks flap I was starting to wonder. From the Wikipedia backgrounder:

During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, several weeks after their Grammy success, the Dixie Chicks performed in concert in London on March 10, 2003, at the Shepherd's Bush Empire theatre in London. During this concert, the band gave a monologue to introduce their song "Travelin' Soldier," during which Natalie Maines, a Texas native, was quoted by The Guardian as saying, "Just so you know, [...] we're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas."

The response from the pro-war right was immediate, indignant, and damaging. The band gamely cited the First Amendment (recall this appearance on Real Time With Bill Maher, for example), but this was never a First Amendment issue. The First reads,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The key word here is Congress, and Congress never acted. It never held a single subcommittee hearing, never voted on a policy proposal. No legislator ever considered banning such remarks, whether here or abroad. The Dixie Chicks spoke, and then the people spoke back, that simple.

Yet that did not prevent the left from making statements such as:

"[The Dixie Chicks] were made to feel un-American and risked economic retaliation because of what was said.Our democracy has taken a hit."
--Al Gore to a college audience in Murfreesboro, TN.

"For [the Dixie Chicks] to be banished wholesale from radio stations, and even entire radio networks, for speaking out is un-American."
--Bruce Springsteen, on his web site

"To those familiar with 20th-century European history it [seems] eerily reminiscent of.... But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here."
--Paul Krugman, on a demonstration in Louisiana where the audience at a private rally watched a tractor destroy Dixie Chicks LPs

"The United States thrives because our citizens have the right to express their opinions (dissent or otherwise) without fear of legal retaliation. Unlike in dictatorships where death or imprisonment follows expression. Let freedom ring by our voices and whichever opinion is spoken."

--A representative post on this petition drive here.

I am certain that each of them knows better. Al Gore knows that policy is not about how men and women are made to feel. Bruce Springsteen knows that a boycott is hardly un-American. Paul Krugman knows the difference between state-sponsored and private-sector destruction of art and literature. And the petitioner knows that freedom of speech is a far different thing from freedom from consequences.

But back to Imusgate, where once again a brief remark has caused a storm of protest. Again we must remind ourselves that, while the original remark is constitutionally-protected speech, the storm of protest, too, is constitutionally-protected speech. And who better to remind us of this than...? Reverend Al Sharpton (on Bill Maher):

"There was no federal or government regulators that fired [Don Imus]. What fired him was when advertisers were told by their customers that they're not going to support them if they support this kind of stuff.... You can't tell people that Don Imus has the right to say what he wants, but we don't have the right to respond. Free speech goes both ways.... Are you suggesting then that we be muzzled, and that Mr. Imus say what he wants to say?"

Couldn't have said it better myself. Of either flap. Watch the whole interview here.