Originally posted here by MsMittens
You're right. She has the right to say what she wants. Just as much as those that don't agree have the right to file a complaint (grievance) with the FCC (government) as well as stop buying from advertisers and stop listening to the radio station, which in turn will lose money and will have no choice but to cut back. That may result in a job(s) lost. So, if I was a radio station, I'd weigh the financial balance book versus 1st Admendement.

Additionally, there is a question of whether this is actually a freedom of expression. If she's apologized about it, then I'd think she doesn't agree with the statement and it's not an expression of her beliefs (which, IIRC, is what the 1st Amendment was designed for). Howard Stern was pulled over some of his more raunchier comments, AFAIK. How is this different?
Firstly, I doubt this incident will stop people from listening to the radio station. Odds are it'll just the opposite and increase numbers since the increase in publicity will tune more listeners to it.

And now I'm just going off an assumption here. I highly doubt her apology was one for playing a paraody on the radio, but rather a smart move to try to keep her job. Howard Stern wasn't yanked off anything, he was fined by the FCC and then signed a contract with Sirius or some other satellite radio company to do an unrated and uncensored show via satellite.

I was always told that the right to free speech was of the utmost importance.............

But it doesn't mean you can scream FIRE, in a crowded theatre..................
Freedom of speech without infringing on the rights of others or causing danger.

...say whatever floats her boat as long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights...