In my StopRosie.com post I have been accused of being a paid shill for the mystical O’Reilly faction that is using Nazi tactics to destroy free speech.

I first laughed at the accusation of being paid.  Honest, of all the reasons I do this, money is far from my thoughts.  I pay my own hosting, I am my own webmaster, I sucker my daughter into a little free graphic design, and to date I have easily invested 2000+ hours of unpaid time in writing, reading, research and all the sundry time wasters that blogs require.  I am nowhere close to making any manner of profit.  Period.

I am unaffiliated with any party, and only loosely affiliated with most other bloggers.  I do not operate in lockstep with the neocons, or even the mild conservatives.  My views are frequently not in the majority and I like it that way.

I wish I was a sellout, I could use the cash.

As to the accusations about working with O’Reilly to destroy free speech, where this intersects with Rosie O’Donnel, the accusation falls empty, because at its core, the flap over Rosie has nothing to do with free speech, at least not in the way most people are addressing it.

 Let me repeat that.  The StopRosie.com issue is not a free speech issue.

I will preface that outrageous proclamation by saying that I take free speech seriously.  My blog is a representation of free speech and if anyone were to interfere I would react harshly.

I have written numerous blogs on free speech issues, and if anyone has read them they will know two things:

• I value free speech as one the essential core values that makes America unique, and great.
• Free speech is the most over used, abused and misunderstood freedoms we own.

The two statements are not in conflict.  Any manner of goofiness gets attributed to free speech, and even in the wider interpretation of free speech as meaning the freedom of ideas, or even the freedom of expression, as it so often is now, there are a lot of things that are either restricted or were never really intended to be covered.

Read here for a few representations of what I believe:

• http://leaningstraightup.com/2006/10/26/abortion-and-free-speech/
  
• http://leaningstraightup.com/2005/07/03/free-speech/
  
• http://leaningstraightup.com/2006/04/13/the-consequences-of-free-speech-welcome-to-america/
  
• http://leaningstraightup.com/category/civil-rights/free-speech/

So back to Rosie.  Why is what she is saying on The View not really a free speech issue?

To start, I concur she has the right under the 1st Amendment to free speech, but free speech is a personal right not a right in regards to what you do at your place of employment.  Your rights to free speech end at the door of your workplace.  Where I work, I deal with confidential information daily, some confidential because of non-disclosure agreements, and some that is covered by attorney client privileged communications.  If free speech was an unrestricted absolute I could say anything about those confidential items I wanted, but the reality is that I cannot unless I want to lose my job and face legal repercussions.  Military people understand this concept even better, particularly those with security clearances.

So yes, she has every bit of free speech as anyone else does, but like all of us, it is tempered by some limitations and the threats of consequence.   Free speech is not free.

When you are at work your rights to free speech are subject to the discretion of your employer.  Try working at McDonalds® and telling your customers in line that you like Burger King® better and see how long you get to keep your job.  You are a representative of your employer, and as such your speech may be held to represent the image of your employer, particularly when your job is one in which you are paid to speak. 

To put it in the context of my accuser, even Bill O’Reilly is subject to this formula, and at some point he may say something Fox disagrees with enough that they sever his employment, and be sure that he and any other paid pundit understand that, as do most radio show hosts and other opinion based entertainers.

If Rosie made her whacked out accusations in her house, or at a rally or in other personal environments, she is on her own.  But when she makes the on The View she faces the judgment of three very discerning bosses:  ABC, the audience and the show’s sponsors.  ABC has an obligation to treat the audience and the sponsors as their litmus test of a show.   When the ratings tank, the sponsors bail and the show is revamped or canceled.

In this case the ratings have been good with Rosie on The View, so ABC is supportive.  But there is another issue at work in the ratings/popularity measurement.  Sometimes the ratings reflect scrutiny that is negative, and while the negative attention draws viewers to watch the dramatics, it also draws criticism and boycotts. 

And here is where the leftists who are defending Rosie display their hypocrisy.  The StopRosie campaign is one to encourage people to demand ABC do something about her speeches and accusations due to them being offensive.  To do that they sign petitions, write the network write the sponsors and encourage them to no longer sponsor the show, and even threaten boycotts.

How are the leftists hypocritical?  I can sum it up in two words:  Ann Coulter.

Ann loves to be outrageous, and the left loves to respond by being outraged and demanding a boycott or some repercussions.

My point is that the left, and even the right who find her outrageous, have a right to complain about Ann, and they have every right to complain to her employer, or to boycott her books.  If that is true, then StopRosie.com and  those who agree with it, have every right to hold Rosie to the same standard, and to demand some repercussions.

Rosie makes it easy by not just being outrageous, but by being unhinged and outrageous.  Her comments have been racist, conspiracy laced, scientifically unsound, slanderous and very offensive.  I disagree with some that claim treasonous, but that is a matter of semantics.  The point is that the criticism against her is of her own creation.

So some people who were offended got together and decided to boycott her sponsors, and to demand ABC take a stand.  How is that bad?  If I was at a McDonalds and I determined a cashier was behaving in a disagreeable and unprofessional manner, I have the right to go to the manager and demand he be punished or fired.  The manager makes the call what to do about it, but he also knows that my patronage may depend on his response.   For just me he would likely not care too much unless it was extreme and blatant.

But if two people followed after me and said the same thing, he would be concerned.  And if that turned to 10, or 20 the cashier would likely be out the door.

So too are people demanding that Disney and ABC evaluate Rosie’s remarks and behavior, and determine what should be done.  As long as the ratings hold, they will likely do nothing.  And the people offended by her know it.

So they move to the next level:  Patronage and sponsorship.

They stop watching the show and encourage others to do likewise.  But even more to the point, they  can also contact the sponsors (list here:  http://www.stoprosie.com/sponsors.php) and let them know that they will not support products that support her.

This is a time honored approach of the left and the right.  And if enough people sign on, who knows?

As the comments in the post about StopRosie, show, there is overwhelming support of boycotting her and her sponsors so we may find out.

And the bottom line, her free speech is not in danger, it has just been held to the same reasonable consequences as anyone else.  

Does her fame or the fact that it is a TV show somehow insulate her from that responsibility?  No, if anything it requires her to live under a much higher standard, as many people in the public eye seem to understand, but sadly some people do not.  Instead they, like Rosie seem to exploit it, to revel in the controversy of saying something outrageous, and knowing that they celebrity will give there comments undue weight.

Her employer has the right to ignore all the fuss if they choose to.  But they also know she is in effect a representative of ABC and if her outrageousness grows, it will fuel the boycotts and potentially cause them some manner of revenue impact.

If that point happens, they will drop her like a dirty shirt.  If the boycott fails, it runs the risk of martyring Rosie and making her more popular.  The drama has just begin folks.

But make no mistakes, this is not about free speech.

This is about marketing.

One final note.  The issue with Rosie is not that her ideas are dangerous and must be suppressed.  What is truly dangerous is that she actually is unhinged enough to believe them herself.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, Perri Nelson’s Website, Big Dog’s Weblog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Hollywood Gossip, Pursuing Holiness, Pet’s Garden Blog, Rightlinx, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Stageleft, stikNstein… has no mercy, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Random Yak, A Blog For All, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, Cao’s Blog, Phastidio.net, The Bullwinkle Blog, , Conservative Cat, Jo’s Cafe, Conservative Thoughts, , Diary of the Mad Pigeon, sissunchi, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, High Desert Wanderer, Wake Up America, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.