The First Amendment to the United States Constitution 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 to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The various clauses found within this single amendment both work with each other and against each other. The firing of Hayley Geftman-Gold, a former vice president a senior legal counsel at CBS, is an excellent primer on how the first amendment works.
Following the tragic terrorist event at a Las Vegas concert on Oct. 1, Geftman-Gold exercised her right to free speech. In a Twitter reply she stated, “If they wouldn’t do anything when children were murdered i have no hope that the Repugs will ever do the right thing. I’m actually not even sympathetic bc country music fans often are republican gun toters.”
Unsurprisingly, these words caused an outrage by many people of all political stripes. Many believed these words were completely disgusting and shameful. Because of Geftman-Gold’s chosen forum – Twitter – she was quickly called to task by many individuals. Ultimately, CBS, her then employer, fired her and stated that her comments “violated the standards of our company” and “[h]er views as expressed on social media are deeply unacceptable to all of us at CBS.”
Here, the First Amendment worked exactly as the drafters of the Constitution expected.
No governmental entity threatened Geftman-Gold with any type of punishment. Rather, individuals and organizations within the private sector (employers, neighbors, friends, the general public) saw words they found inappropriate and offensive and made their voice known. There was no free speech issue because the government did not unnecessarily intervene in private conduct and attempt to tell Geftman-Gold that she is unable to say these words because they are offensive or inappropriate or so-called hate-speech.
Next, CBS, either on its own accord or because of the reaction of potential consumers, fired Geftman-Gold. This was CBS, as a private non-governmental entity, exercising its freedom to associate with individuals who met its standards. There was no free association issue because the government did not unnecessarily intervene in private conduct and attempt to force CBS to either establish or maintain a relationship with individuals that CBS did not want to maintain.
The First Amendment can cause tension in society. There are sometimes words spoken that seem utterly ridiculous. There are sometimes religious beliefs that seem discriminatory. There are sometimes hurt feelings when a private entity or person does not want to associate with a group of people.
In the end, though, the First Amendment is a call for government restraint. The drafters of the Constitution expected the people to demonstrate their displeasure without requiring government interference. They expected this because they had first-hand knowledge of how an unrestrained government could work (the British crown).
An event not too different than the firing of Geftman-Gold and the events surrounding her firing was likely what the founders envisioned during the Constitutional Convention. I think the founders would be pleased that, in this case, the First Amendment worked.
Sage Bludworth, Salt Lake City, has an M.A. in intelligence and international security from King’s College London (2009) and a Juris Doctorate from the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah (2016).