To paraphrase the Framers, everyone has the constitutionally guaranteed right to say something that gets him in trouble.

Many of us frequently take full advantage of this cherished, God-given privilege. We’re fortunate that most of us only do so in front of our friends, family members or co-workers.

Famous people, however, often perform the act before thousands or even millions.

Such is one price of fame.

Which brings us to the recent tribulations of Phil Robertson. I’m told he’s a TV star on a show called “Duck Dynasty.” I understand that this show, which follows the exploits of a backwoods Louisiana family that happens to own a successful duck-call business, is insanely popular.

Robertson, who they tell me is an evangelical preacher in addition to being a TV personality, got into some hot water recently when he spoke to a national magazine about his views on homosexuality and race relations.

In an interview, Robertson made comments about gay people that many foundderogatory. In another part of the interview, he insisted that the black people he grew up with in the segregated south were really very happy.

Not surprisingly, Robertson was then subjected to heated criticism over his religious and personal views. As a result, Robertson was indefinitely banished from his family’s TV show by the network that produces it, A&E.

The response to the network’s actions also produced a predictable backlash. Mixed with the denunciations of Robertson’s ideas were the shrieks from his supporters that his First Amendment rights were being trampled by the Hollywood persecutors of conservative Christians.

Even that noted constitutional scholar andlearned expert on early American history, Sarah Palin, chimed in on behalf of Robertson’s rights.

As it turns out, Palin knows as much about the First Amendment as she does about Paul Revere’s ride.

Let’s get a couple of things straight: Robertson hasn’t had his First Amendment rights violated. On the contrary, he got to use them to their fullest extent. He said exactly what he wanted to say and,because he’s famous, lots of folks were listening.

Robertson’s words won’t get him arrested. No one will put him on trial or force him to shave his voluminous beard. That’s what the First Amendment says: Speaking your mind or believing as you do are not criminal off enses.

However, not even James Madison would argue that words and ideas won’t have social or fi nancialconsequences.

Here’s the challenge with free speech: Once you say it, you have to own it.

See, those folks who didn’t like what Robertson had to say, they have rights, too.

And they get to call him out if they believe his ideas are short-sighted and hateful.

The people who run A&E are also protected by the First Amendment. If Robertson’s comments lead them to the conclusion that he shouldbe off the air, well, they have the authority to make that happen. Being on a reality TV show is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, even though it seems like everyone in the country is actually on one.

I should point out that while I am not a “Duck Dynasty” fan, I’m not a “hater” either. I have watched portions of a couple of episodes and found that they range between deadly dull and mildly amusing. Until this controversy erupted, I knew nothing about the Robertsons.

I accept that lots of people find their show hysterical and addictive. Which is why Phil Robertson’s future as a D-list TV personality is probably safe. If A&E sticks to its guns and keeps him off the air, I’m sure some other network will eagerly scoop up the franchise and plenty of people will watch. After all, all those folks who agree with Phil Robertson have constitutional protections, too.

See how the the First Amendment works? It’s a beautiful thing.

RUSTY TURNER IS EDITOR AND PUBLISHER OF NWA MEDIA.

Opinion, Pages 11 on 12/29/2013