Killing Free Speech with Your Wallet?

A number of companies have withdrawn advertising from conservative commentator Glenn Beck's television show on FOXNews, leading to cheers from the liberal left and calls for a "reverse boycott" (boycotting the companies that "bowed down to left-wing special interest groups") from those on the right. The advertising moves came largely through the efforts of ColorOfChange.org, a black political coalition which objected to President Barack Obama being called "a racist" by Beck.

Some who have conservative leanings are up in arms. They scream about the threats to "free speech", a charge a little bit wrongheaded as free speech provides legal protection, but not protection from financial implications of companies exercising their "freedom of expression" by not advertising on a given show. Of course, conservatives can retaliate using their "freedom of expression" by boycotting the companies that pulled out of Glenn Beck's show. To the contrary, one might argue that this is freedom of speech at its finest.

I'll also tweak both sides of the political fence by saying that people tend to hide beyond the First Amendment and scream "suppression of free speech!" somewhat selectively. During the second Iraq war, a handful of conservative activist groups were identifying and calling for boycotts of movies starring Hollywood actors and actresses who were vocal in their opposition of the Iraq war, along with calls for then President Bush and Vice President Cheney's removal from office. The response of the actors and actresses revolved around the "terrifying return of McCarthyism" and "witch-hunts". So to be fair, it's a "witch hunt" to organize people to tell people not to go to your movie because they don't like your views on Iraq, but it's legitimate to pressure sponsors to not advertise on Glenn Beck? What's the difference? Somehow I don't see Sean Penn blasting ColorofChange.org of a "witch hunt".

I know, I know. Strong opinions are okay, but Glenn Beck "crossed the line" (whatever that is). Here's the official release from CVS:

We support free speech of all kinds, and vigorous debate, especially around policy issues that affect millions of Americans. But we expect the speech and the debate to be informed, inclusive and respectful, in keeping with our company’s core values and commitment to diversity. In our view, Mr. Beck crossed the line.

Good luck defining that line. And try convincing conservatives that Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann somehow don't cross it on a daily basis.