On Freedom of Speech

Now I'm not typically one to judge people for being wrong.

Except for all the times I judge people for being wrong.

But we need to have a little conversation about First Amendment rights.  Because you've probably heard about Phil Robertson (the dude with the beard on Duck Dynasty. No not that dude with the beard, the other dude with the beard).

That dude with the beard.

He made some comments about the Bible and TEH GAYS and TEH BLACKS and lots of people got really offended.  We're not going to talk about that part because my thoughts on people who make offensive racist/homophobic comments are pretty well known.  But then A&E put him on indefinite suspension for those comments and lots of other people got offended.  Because FREE SPEECH.

Now, I don't pretend to be a Constitution expert, except insofar as I spend most of my time following politics pretty closely and carry a Pocket Constitution in my backpack like the BAMF that I am.  But we need to have a discussion for anyone who thinks your First Amendment right protects you from being fired.

We can talk about the nebulous philosophical concept of freedom of speech, if you'd like, in another post.  There is a comment section for a reason.  But right now, we're going to talk about Freedom of Speech as it is outlined in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  This right protects you from the Federal government revoking your established right to freedom of speech.

"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."

That's a precise quote, if you're at all curious.  The freedom of speech protected in the Constitution is a political right, not a philosophical right.  So, unless your employer happens to be the United States Government, you don't get to go yelling about First Amendment Rights when they tell you you're not allowed to say it.

In particular, though I cannot speak to the exact clauses of the contracts in Duck Dynasty (snooping into private legal documents is not my forte), this case is likely a question of contractual obligations.  It is not an uncommon practice for actors' or reality stars' contracts to contain clauses about the kinds of statements they can make in public related to a company's brand.  If these clauses exist in any DD contracts, and A&E felt the statements made were antithetical to the channel's brand, they have every right as an employer to tell Mr. Robertson that he cannot say them and to punish him as they see fit (within the confines of the law).

Freedom of Speech protects you from government censorship.  It does not protect you from the social or economic implications of saying something other people don't like.

Constitutionally yours,

Rachel Leigh

On Unconditional Love

So Katy Perry has a song out called "Unconditionally."

Come just as you are to me
Don't need apologies
Know that you are worthy
I'll take your bad days with your good
Walk through the storm I would
I do it all because I love you
I love you
Unconditionally

We need to have a chat about the concept of unconditional love.  It can be familial, it can be romantic, it can be friendly.  But it's a messed up concept.

The idea behind unconditional love is that it can overcome any obstacle and weather any mistakes.

But the thing about love is that it's not supposed to be unconditional.  Love is meant to be conditional -- it's based on how you treat one another, whether you trust each other, and the foundations of a strong bond.  No one deserves your love in spite of how they treat you.

The idea that someone has a right to your love in virtue of anything other than the fact that they have earned it and you have freely given it contributes to child abuse and spousal abuse in a way that's really unhealthy.  Most people think that the concept of unconditional love is cute.

But think about a dog who loves his master unconditionally, who comes when he's called regardless of how many times he's been kicked.  It's not cute; it's sad.  But we expect people in families or relationships to "work through" the rough times and love each other anyway.

Unconditional love shouldn't be praised as this amazing feat: you have a right to withdraw your love whenever you feel you need to, whenever the bad begins to outweigh the good.  Loving someone regardless of how they treat you isn't endearing or romantic.  It just hurts.

A Collection of Mini-Thoughts

There have been a lot of silly mini-thoughts that have almost been posts recently.

The inanity of Black Friday and the irony of beating each other to death over half-price TVs a the same night that we've spent telling our families how thankful we are.

A comprehensive list of what I'm thankful for (friends, school, family, not being dead all currently topping the list).  A response to Carrie Hope Fletcher's Boys in Books are Better in which I attempt to create my best book-based boy (my alliterative skills are off the charts).

But I think instead, I'm going to talk a bit about family.  I was always raised to think that family is important -- to respect members of my family, to have people's backs, to love family.  But I also learned that blood alone is not the be-all-end-all of what it means to be family.

Family is made up a lot by choices.  Marriages, divorces, re-marriages should be enough to give some insight into what I mean here -- nothing fundamentally has changed in the physical makeup of a family, but a lot has changed in the choices that defined what "family" meant.

Sometimes the choices aren't always very easy, and sometimes, it seems, the choices end up being wrong.  But my family, over the years, has been a series of add-ons and removals as it seemed necessary, and it makes me kind of happy to finally see some representations of chosen families in media, rather than a reinforcement of the idea that "because they're blood you have to love them."