We have the right to free speech, sometimes.

I was reading ESPN.com and saw where baseball manager Ozzie Guillen was suspended for 5 games by Major League Baseball for comments he made to Time Magazine.  Guillen told Time magazine he loves Castro and respects him for staying in power so long. Later when read his comments , he said he felt sick because he knew how people would react.  He promptly apologized for the comments and said it was because he was thinking in Spanish but talking in English.

In no way do I agree with his comments.  I am about as far from being a Castro supporter as one could be.  But lets assume that what Ozzie Guillen said was not a case of lost in translation, but his actual honest to goodness feelings.  Guillen is a citizen of the United States of America.  He was born in Venezuela but became naturalized citizens of the US in 2006.  He, just like me, has his speech protected by the first amendment. He wasn't speaking at a press conference for the Marlins (the team he coaches). And yes, it is not lost on me that he is a celebrity and a public figure whose words will be scrutinized regardless of any political context.   In this case, he was being interviewed for a magazine.  He was on his own time.  He made a very unpopular statement.  I am sure that Major League Baseball has policies in place that govern unpopular speech even when not in uniform.  My question isn't if what he said was right or wrong, its should he have the right to say it.

The First Amendment protects your right to free speech.  Under this amendment, criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, sexism, and other hate speech are almost always permitted. (per wikipedia)  What he said was clearly unpopular.  Most would find it distasteful.  It is very much against our governments policy.  Where does this amendment actually protect people if his employer is allowed to suspend and fine him?

Put another way, taking it to the logical extreme, my employer could also put in place a policy that restricts my right to say what I like.  I could be sitting at a bar, eating wings, drinking a cold beverage, and I say to the guy next to me "Boy, Obama sure does suck!".  My employers position on speaking out against the government could be to fine me or suspend me or to even fire me.  How is this scenario different from what Ozzie Guillen is facing?  What I said was unpopular (to some) just as what he said was unpopular (to some, but likely to a few more people).  Is his celebrity the only difference?  Lets say this blog really takes off and I become a worldwide phenomenon.  Am I no longer entitled to my unpopular opinions?  Are there not segments of our society who still believe in many very unpopular things?

The danger in policing speech becomes where the line is drawn.  Pro-Castro is a very short leap to Anti-Obama.  You wont find many pro-Castro folks who are not anti-US and by extension anti-Obama.  There are people who believe that we should not be fighting in the Middle East.  This ideal is quite unpopular with those who do.  Is it reasonable that anyone should have the right to enforce silence on these topics from those who dissent even in you "represent" another organization?

I admit, its a fine line.  A company's reputation is based on the image of those who represent it.  When AFLAC fired Gilbert Gottlieb over remarks he made as a comedian, no one flinched.  AFLAC just found a new voice for the duck and life went on.  I would argue that by allowing this type of censorship, we draw ourselves one step close to the "Big Brother is watching you" scenario from the book 1984.  The challenge is that no one wants to step up and say "Hey!  Let Guillen support Castro!" because it is unpopular.

Comments?  Leave em here!  Please share.