I wanted to take a moment and respond to that Hill piece posted earlier arguing that Hogg going after Ingrahams advertisers for her statements sets a dangerous precedent.

The writer argues that by someone like Hogg so easily mobilizing people against the advertisers, he’s effectively destroying Ingrahams First Amendment rights because now she won’t want to say what she really thinks about other issues for fear of further backlash. The problem is this is an amazingly stupid argument for two reasons:

1) The First Amendment does NOT shield anyone from the consequences of their speech.
2) THIS IS NOT A FUCKING FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE. Neither Fox News or Twitter are run by the government!

Ingraham can whine and bitch all day about her stupid show getting fucked up or canceled but none of it has jack shit to do with her Constitutional rights.