Chick-fil-A in trouble?

Lately, Chick-Fil-A has come under fire in a political and social backlash toward the chain. In fact, Mayor Thomas Menino is prohibiting the chain to locate one of their franchises in Boston. The CEO of the mega chain expressed his disbelief in the equality and rights of same sex marriage. In fact, he would most likely prefer if same sex marriage was prohibited. This is interesting because the CEO of the chain has the perfect right to the freedom of speech for what he believes in and/or thinks. Furthermore, since he believes in this and has the right to without government suppression there are moat certainly consequences. The freedom of speech does not protect one from the freedom of speech with negativity on the part of others who backlashed against him. In this sense, does the mayor have the right to vocalize that a chain will not be added in Boston now?
1

This is a complicated fine line because though it is vocalizing that the chain can not be in Boston, it is also a physical line to revoke the presence of a chain. But, since the mayor's approval is needed this case shows the different complexities of the first amendment. Here, it is the idea that one's first amendment may end up being as a result of another and may also be more effective. Moreover, it shows that the freedom of speech can come with consequences as it did in this case. Ultimately because the CEO voiced his opinions he has damaged the chain's growth and a public opinion toward it. This story demonstrates a deep meaning: if the first amendment can be used and is applicable to one's beliefs then perhaps sometimes it is necessary to hinder those opinions and keep those thoughts to ones self. This way, there is no retribution and one can believe in what they want to believe in without consequences/major real-world backlash.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/randazza-first-amendment/

Trump Shuts Down First Amendment?

Donald Trump, in February of 2016, argued to "open up the libel laws" and aim to sue any such media outlets in order to make money. He essentially didn't like what the media has been saying about him and deems it unacceptable. This is a dangerous accusation to bring it up because it raises the question of does Trump take aim at removing the right to speech. The people have the freedom of press but the press commentators also have the right for their own freedom of speech. Many believe that Trump is just being the typical big-talker and guy who is mouthing off but in reality, the media outlets claim that Trump has been very successful in the past with conducting, filing, and winning SLAPP's (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). This exercises the right not to go against Trump or anyone with the idea of using SLAPP in the future.

If Trump were President, the idea behind this story, is that he would likely replace and pick Chief Justices that would revisit the libel laws and be in denial of Anti-SLAPP laws. This gives Trump the right to say what he wants without a major media backlash. For Trump, the SLAPP laws gives Trump for self-power to do what he wants without consequence. Thus, the media couldn't say anything negative toward him without his consent or he could sue them for a lot of money. This may be a win-win for Donald Trump but for the rest of the country it becomes a mess. This means that bloggers could not act out in malice with their opinions against Trump or for any powerful figure who is in favor of this, for that matter. This could break down a country built upon freedom, something that this country can and should fear.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/28/opinions/trump-first-amendment-protections-opinion-randazza/