BooMan liberally interprets the US Constitution. When it suits him. Just like everybody else.

God, Andrew Sullivan Can Act Stupid

Thus he begins his attack on Andrew Sullivan with a brutal ad hominem and follows at length with arrant hypocrisy about the proper reading of the First Amendment.

Thus he writes of that provision,

We're talking about Congress.

The United States Congress.

The legislative branch of the federal government.

The First Amendment gives us certain protections against Congress making certain laws.

One of the areas where we are protected is in our ability to speak freely.

We can say what we want and Congress can't shut us up.

Now, let's say that we are the CEO of a major corporation.

And let's say that we say some things that are very unpopular in certain circles.

Or, maybe we make a political contribution to a cause that some people find very distasteful.

Are we protected under the First Amendment from people (not Congress) voicing their displeasure?

Are we protected from people demanding that we be fired?

Are we protected against people boycotting our company?

Not under the First Amendment, we're not.

In fact, let's say that we're not the CEO of a company but one of the middle managers.

Is there any reason our boss can't fire us for saying things that embarrass the company, alienate clients and customers, or that violate company policy?

The answer is no.

The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to say whatever you want and not suffer any consequences.

It only says that Congress cannot tell you to shut up or punish you for speaking.

To which I replied in a comment that will be ignored or denounced, with lots of ad hominems from his readers as Neanderthal as himself,

So you agree, then, that the First Amendment does not bind the states and has no bearing on electronic media?

That it obviously does not create a right of journos to refuse to reveal sources or share their notes and recordings under subpoena or court order?

That the 14th Amendment pertains, quite literally, to police and law enforcement conduct, binds state governments and not the federal government, and has nothing to do with segregation, whether legally mandated or de facto, in public schools or anything else, and nothing to do with any form of discrimination by private employers, clubs, or businesses, whether regarding employees, customers, suppliers, members, or guests?

You've gone all Originalist on us, have you?

Next you'll be agreeing that South Carolina can, under the federal constitution, honestly interpreted, establish Protestant Christianity as its officially sanctioned and tax-supported religion, to be taught exclusively in all its public schools.

And that the Air Force and paper money are unconstitutional.

And then it might occur to you to recall that, only recently, everyone agreed that the most important liberal victories over the last century in court were won by Supreme Court justices engaged not only in constitutional disobedience but constitutional fraud.

And that maybe your security from employer punishment for free speech is at least as important in a democracy as your security from employer punishment for being gay, black, an atheist, or whatever.

Maybe Andy's onto something, eh?

Maybe it's best, especially for a liberal, not to be too literal about the First Amendment?

Or anything else in that silly old thing, the US Constitution.

I was right, of course.

The first response was from the BooMan, himself, and consisted of a single sentence of personal abuse.

The second was from one of his regular sycophants, and was quite similar.