Free Speech Quackery
...Similarly, when the New York Times Co. expends corporate resources to argue against the free-speech rights of corporations, it is guilty of hypocrisy but not censorship. And Swanson changes the subject when she brings up morals clauses; firing someone for "behavior" is different from firing him for speech.

As for Jindal's statement that "this is a free country and everyone is entitled to express their views," the only thing wrong with it is the antecedent-pronoun disagreement. The First Amendment does entitle everyone to express his views. That is true of all the parties to the "Duck Dynasty" controversy, including GLAAD, the gay-rights organization that denounced Robertson, and A&E, the network that responded by "suspending" him (a decision it later reversed in the face of viewer disapproval)....

...Thus, implicit in the claim that A&E was within its legal rights in suspending Robertson--which it was, in our view--is a recognition that corporations and not just individuals have the right to free speech. We remember when the left didn't believe in the First Amendment.