I watched Laura Ingraham's show on Fox News. This is why she isn't a 'defender of free speech'

Ironically, it seems that it will only be bile spitting conservatives, and maybe worse, that can we can expect to see on The Ingraham Angle’s new feature

Good news free speech advocates: there’s a Conservative stepping up to fight the good fight!

Fox News host Laura Ingraham has woken up to the fact that there is more than just the one amendment to the US Constitution that covers guns.

The fiery presenter has returned from her Easter break and announced that a new segment in her nightly Ingraham Angle show will focus on defending the First Amendment guaranteeing free speech.

There’ll be lots of time for it too, perhaps because her advertisers are still lounging around by the pool sipping cocktails and sunning themselves while she’s back at work. The lazy schmos.

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech,” she said, quoting Benjamin Franklin while announcing the segment.

For readers on this side of the pond, he was one of the signatories to the US Declaration of Independence, a man frequently consulted by Thomas Paine, the rabble rousing radical English journalist who penned The Rights of Man and played a role in the revolutions of both the US and France. Not sure that Franklin wouldn’t be turning in his grave at Laura's quoting him, but stirring stuff all the same.

Now “Defending the First” has been launched, I’d imagine LeBron James will want to keep his diary clear on those days when he’s not dazzling basketball fans with his skills on court.

Ingraham will surely want to have him on her show to discuss the way someone sought to impugn his First Amendment rights by suggesting that he “shut up and dribble” after he spoke out on social justice.

As for Ted Nugent, the ageing rocker and rifle enthusiast had best do what he did when he was dodging the Vietnam draft because Ingraham must surely be looking to draft him for a monstering. After suggesting Democrats and liberals were “rabid coyotes” who should be shot for having views diverging from his, how could a doughty defender of the First not jump on him?

Then there’s Donald Trump. Life’s probably going to get sticky for the Pres the next time he uses his bully pulpit to try and silence his critics.

Wait, what’s that? You’re telling me Ingraham is the person who insisted that LeBron confine his speech to discussing dribbling his way past his NBA rivals en route to a slam dunk? And Ted Nugent is a fan and frequent guest on her network? And that she’d probably cheer Trump on if he suggested putting his critics in a field full of Nugent’s coyotes?

Surely not!

Yes, it seems that it will only be bile spitting conservatives, and maybe worse, that can expect to appear on The Ingraham Angle’s new feature.

But is it really even the free speech of Conservative nut jobs who suggest that liberals should be killed that Ingraham is concerned about. Or is it her advertisers?

Before her break she proved that there are no depths too deep for a Fox host to plumb by mocking Florida school shooting survivor turned youthful gun control activist David Hogg’s college application process in a tweet. It said: “David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA...totally predictable given acceptance rates.)”

Hogg responded to this vindictive little piece of pettiness by calling out her advertisers and suggesting his legion of Twitter followers contact them in the hopes of securing a boycott.

One reason for the Ingraham Angle needing to find a new slot is that the advertisers are taking up less of the show’s time.

Now, I take the point of talk show host Bill Maher, who has defended Ingraham despite describing her as “a deliberately horrible person”, about the dangers of this sort of thing. He experienced it from the other side of the aisle following some controversial statements he made a few years back. As such, he has good reason to feel squeamish about what’s happened to her.

It’s fair to ask whether we really want to get to a point where the only views that can secure advertising support are those that have first been policed by the PR departments of big corporations.

The media in that world would be a dry and dull place. Having advocated for trade unions, workers’ rights, the living wage and regulations to protect the environment, I’m almost certain I’d be out of a job. In reality, there probably wouldn’t be many viewers or readers for advertisers to reach.

Still, what you have to remember is that under a First Amendment Ingraham appears not to fully understand despite her Ivy League education, Hogg has every right to call for such a boycott. And advertisers have every right to respond to it if they choose to. Or not.

Freedom is as freedom does.

It’s probably not so much Ingraham’s views advertisers don’t want their brands to be associated with as it is her mean spiritedness. It’s her decision to take being a deliberately horrible person to an extreme, her calculated and very deliberate scraping of the bottom of the barrel.

So while I concede that the boycott makes me uncomfortable, it needs to be seen through that lens.

As for the question of Ingraham’s free speech? Her show is still on Fox, and on YouTube (I spent an afternoon watching it while researching this column and had to take a shower afterwards).

She still has her job.