I note that many people don’t actually read documents they cite. So here’s the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is not the same thing as saying that anyone has an unrestricted right (or any right at all, for that matter) to comment on someone’s else’s blog, or that declining to post comments infringes on someone’s First Amendment Rights. Indeed, those folks wanting to express themselves can do so through establishing their own blogs, so their freedom of expression remains unimpaired by whatever happens on an individual blog.
It is always amusing to see that the people who make this mistake claim they understand the Constitution. They don’t. I doubt they’ve even read it, but it’s clear that they don’t understand it.
In the past a person critical of this blog has claimed that my belief that a certain Virginia Flagger should be able to express her opinion freely in public without suffering retaliation from her employer displays a misunderstanding of the First Amendment … but I did not invoke the amendment. I note that the Flaggers are silent on whether to support this person’s right to express her opinion publicly without fear of retaliation, while I have supported her in this matter. What that says about the Virginia Flaggers I leave up to you to decide.