JConnelly Insights
The “Duck Dynasty” Suspension Teaches Us A Valuable Lesson About Free Speech
The term “free speech” often gets thrown around when a public figure such as a celebrity, politician or business leader is reprimanded for expressing a contentious opinion or slur.
This familiar storyline played out this week when A&E suspended one of its “Duck Dynasty” stars over controversial remarks he made about gays and blacks in a recent GQ article. Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the “Duck Dynasty” gang, used his faith as the basis for his remarks. His family and many of his fans have charged that this suspension violates his constitutional right to freedom of speech and religious expression. To get to the heart of this debate, it is important to understand the difference between First Amendment rights and a private employer’s duty to protect their brand.
The American Bill of Rights was designed to restrict congress and government agents from infringing upon certain core rights of the people that our founders deemed essential. They began this list with an amendment barring the government from “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion and “abridging the freedom of speech.” The freedom of speech has been an essential staple of American discourse that allows ideas to be openly expressed and debated. In that context, Mr. Robertson’s comments are well within his constitutional right to free speech, as are the comments and backlash from those he offended.
The major flaw with the “free speech” argument in this situation, and others like it, is the government had nothing to do with Mr. Robertson’s suspension. His suspension was imposed by his private employer, A&E, who acted upon their organizational responsibility to protect their brand. Reality TV stars like the Robertsons are salaried and often scripted entertainers employed by their respective networks. Private employers are under no obligation to support, ignore, or oppose the controversial views of their employees. In the case of “Duck Dynasty,” the network made a strategic decision to separate themselves from Mr. Robertson’s candid comments by suspending him from the show.
Employees in all fields must understand that, as representatives of their organization, their public views are subject to backlash that can damage their organization’s brand. In an age where one comment, tweet or iPhone video can swiftly become a major headline, it is crucial for employers to clearly communicate their expectations of how their employees conduct themselves publicly. The First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting the free expression of ideas, but it does not protect a rogue employee from the consequences imposed by an upset boss.
Brian Hart is an Account Executive at Jennifer Connelly Public Relations (JCPR).
Follow Brian on Twitter @BrianHartPR.