Rush does it. Tim Robbins does it. The Dixie Chicks do it.

No. I'm not talking about taking mind-numbing drugs. I'm talking about hijacking the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That is the amendment which, among other things, forbids Congress from making law which restricts freedom of speech.

The courts have also read it in conjunction with the 14th Amendment, which forbids states from passing laws abridging the privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States.

People need to understand that the First Amendment does not guarantee that there will be no consequences of their governmentally guaranteed free speech.

Here's a little experiment: Go to work Monday and harangue everybody with an extreme position on any hot button issue of the day. Make sure you get customers, subordinates and superiors. Don't discriminate. See how long you last. If you make it through the day, you won't make it through the week. Where's your right to "free speech"?

The fact is that we all have various relationships with nongovernmental entities and just plain people. They can have interests that are not consistent with allowing our political rants. We therefore have choices to make.

When Rush Limbaugh chose to talk about the racial basis for evaluating quarterbacks, he risked alienating a large segment of the viewers of ESPN, his employer. He made his choice. His choice created such discomfort that he then chose to scurry back to his mute button and ditto heads.

When Tim Robbins and the Dixie Chicks chose to take a front-line partisan stance on the war in Iraq, they risked alienating a large portion of the people who buy tickets to movies and concerts. They made that choice. I'm sure it cost them.

The moral of the story is: Free speech ain't cheap. It can have consequences. Those consequences are not generally First Amendment issues.

What troubles me most is the unwillingness of pundits and commentators to make the distinction between First Amendment issues and issues related to the cost of free speech.

If you start reading a column about the violation of CBS' first amendment rights when commercial pressure is brought to bear upon the broadcast of the Reagans' bio, stop reading and turn the page. The author either does not understand the significance of the First Amendment or is being dishonest. In either situation he or she does not merit your continued attention.

When you listen to a radio talk show with a host who whines about Rush's right to free speech being infringed, change the channel. I'm sure that one of the blue million hosts out there does understand the distinction.

The First Amendment is a great thing. It deserves to be accurately represented.

---

C.F. Foote is an attorney and an associate professor of business law at the University of Cincinnati's Raymond Walters College.