In reference to Timothy Hunt's column published on Sunday, March 13, 2011:

The First Amendment to the Constitution states, in relevant part: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ..." This first of the Bill of Rights enshrines into our constitutional framework the idea that the federal government cannot restrict our freedom of speech. In addition to the First Amendment, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution applies this and the other protections we have to each of the states, so no state can "make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ..."

This protection of the freedom of speech is very specific in that it protects "citizens of the United States" from restrictions on our freedom of speech by the federal and state governments. There is currently a common misunderstanding in our country, and by educated people who should know better, that the First Amendment protects any speech from any restrictions or consequences. Notwithstanding the clear language, many believe, as Mr. Hunt presumes in his article, that citizens and private employers are bound by the same First Amendment restrictions as the federal and state governments.

In his article, Mr. Hunt was absolutely correct to consider the padlocking of his grandfather's print shop by federal officials a violation of his First Amendment right to free speech. There should have been no restriction by the government, state or federal, of his right to print what was on his mind. I'll note that Mr. Hunt's grandfather was printing his opinions on his own initiative and at his own cost. Also, it would not have been a violation of his First Amendment rights if folks had stopped buying his paper because of his opinions. Just because one says something doesn't mean that others have to listen.

An example that comes to mind is when, several years ago, one of the members of the country music group Dixie Chicks made some very negative statements about President Bush. Natalie Maines was fully within her rights to say those things about the president. However, when country music fans not only refused to continue to buy their albums or attend their concerts, but many of these fans destroyed the albums they had already purchased, the Dixie Chicks considered this fan reaction a form of censorship and an affront to free speech - a violation of Natalie Maines' First Amendment rights (incidentally, never mind that she was in Europe when she made the statements).

Another example that comes to mind has to do with my past employment by a bank. While employed there, if I had continuously made statements of opinion to bank customers that were in violation of the bank's stated policies, that had the effect of costing the bank some of its customers, or that had given the appearance of a conflict of interest, the bank rightfully would have fired me. The bank was under no First Amendment obligation to continue to employ me regardless of the statements of personal opinion I might have made, whether those statements were on bank time or on my own time.

In Mr. Hunt's example, MSNBC had no First Amendment obligation to continue to employ Keith Olbermann when his personal statements and activities either cost MSNBC money or created an appearance (whether actual or not considering Olbermann's professed liberalism) of a conflict of interest. Just because "many news people supported Olbermann" doesn't mean that MSNBC had violated Olbermann's free speech rights; in fact, it could be concluded that these supporters of Olbermann just want to be able to say what they want without consequences from their employers. If MSNBC suffers financially because of its decision to fire Olbermann, then that's just a consequence it necessarily should own. MSNBC had no First Amendment obligation to continue to employ Olbermann regardless of what he said or did on his own time because the First Amendment restricts the federal and state governments, not private employers.

It's also worth noting that journalists seem to think that they are exempt from all of this because they are in the business of "speech." While their right to not have their speech restricted by federal and state governments is inviolable, the fact remains that media businesses are just that - businesses. In that respect, they are private enterprises just like other private enterprises and the employees of media businesses should not consider themselves exempt from the profit motives of their employers. Whether it's good business or bad business to restrict an employee's speech or activities is another question altogether, but it's certainly not a First Amendment one. In his article, Mr. Hunt did his part to further muddy the water for much of the public's already unclear understanding of their rights under the First Amendment.

Steve Masterson is a Coeur d'Alene resident.