Freedom of speech isnt all its cracked up to be

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/19/opinion/granderson-duck-dynasty/
Although  this is not an extremely recent article, or an extremely recent event, it was one that i followed fairly closely and after we were assigned to the topic of bill of rights for our blog, I remembered this story. I remembered how everybody had their own opinion about whether this story was unconstitutional or not, this article takes the side of it having nothing to do with the constitution.

The article speaks of how Phil Robertson of the hit show "Duck Dynasty" in an interview with GQ said some very controversial things pertaining to homosexuals and african americans. Although he was speaking from his religious views and what he had been taught, the television network decided to suspend him from the show. The activist groups came out up in arms either supporting the network or condemning it. Those condemning it were saying that it was unconstitutional that the network can try to censor what one of their actors says because of first amendment right of freedom of speech.

Like the article explained, the amendment was not meant to protect anything and everything a person says just because he has the freedom of speech, it is meant to merely keep the government from making laws that may infringe on this right. It is completely within the network's right to suspend a person or punish an employee for speaking out on a controversial issue that may 'damage' the network's repuatation. This is event is a great example of a way that although we all have the freedom of speech, we are not allowed to say anything we want, we still must abide to society's standards or risk persecution or punishment. This does not mean that we should be worried about giving our opinion especially in regards to faith, but like all who speak out we must understand the consequences of our actions and not try to hide behind the first amendment.