If Dr. Laura Schlessinger's slurry outburst on August 10 was hate speech—which it was, and this instance of hate speech is protected by the First Amendment—which it ought to be, then were Schlessinger's First Amendment rights violated by the backlash, as she claimed on the August 17 airing of Larry King Live?

For those of you in a rush, the answer is no. For those of you interested in a more thorough and theoretical exploration...the answer is still no, but let's see why:

Censorship—the suppression of First Amendment rights—comes in two flavors: chocolate and vanilla. Ha ha, but no really, censorship is either institutional (formal) or social (informal). Formal/institutional censorship is so-called because it is explicit and backed by legal authority (the FCC banning or fining the use of certain words or material on air). Informal/social censorship is pressure applied indirectly through self-correcting techniques like public shaming and negative economic incentives (the retraction of sponsors). You will note that I have chosen my parenthetical examples to show how Schlessinger was censored informally by society, but not formally by an institution (she has chosen not to renew her contract because of the retraction of major sponsors and the perceived persecution by the offended parties, while the FCC has yet to take action).

The kicker about Schlessinger's censorship is that it is self-inflicted. Because the censorship she experienced was solely informal and backed by no legal power, Schlessinger is necessarily complicit in her own repression. The culprit in the crime of Schlessinger's missing First Amendment rights turns out to be...Schlessinger herself! She crumpled at the lightest pressure, ostensibly calculating that her perceived victimization was worth more than winning back her sponsors (honestly, how hard could it be? Just let it all blow over and they'll come back) and continuing her radio show. Clearly the economic benefits of her hugely syndicated radio show mean nothing to her since she hardly hesitated to cut herself loose, so how much could the loss of some sponsors have really meant? No, Schlessinger's motivation was to follow the vogue in conservative circles and abandon one's personal responsibilities and commitments to chase some nebulous ur-freedom—or, you know, to become a huge celebrity with a pariah complex and whore out on book deals and the lecture circuit.