Cal Thomas - dial "O" for "Oblivious"

The right-wing victimization party is at it again. Recall, these are the people who advocate "personal responsibility" and constantly characterize themselves as "constitutional conservatives." Nonetheless, we get this from Cal Thomas in today's Indianapolis Star (note, I was only able to see it in the print edition and the link goes to Mr. Thomas' personal site):

This is the wrong approach. Instead of boycotts and threats, how about celebrating the First Amendment by encouraging people to say what they think? Then viewers can decide whether to “buy” what a program is selling or change channels. That was what the left said to do in the 1980s when conservatives were upset by some TV programming. “If you don’t like it, change the channel,” they said. If that was an option then, why isn’t it an option now?

By way of background, the "wrong approach" referenced is the campaign by various groups to get advertisers to stop paying to advertise on Laura Ingraham's show.

It seems that Mr. Thomas believes that this is somehow an infringement on Ingraham's First Amendment right. Accordingly, let's have another lesson in the constitution, for the benefit of Mr. Thomas and his adherents:

1. The constitution does not confer on Laura Ingraham or anyone else the right to have a cabal of advertisers willing to pay money for the right to advertise on one's show.
2. The constitution does not confer on Ingraham (or Hogg for that matter) any immunity from criticism.
3. Advertisers are free to determine for themselves, based on their own self interest, the party with whom they choose to place their advertisements.
4. Individuals are entitled to make their feelings known to advertisers, and advertisers are entitled to judge their own self interest (and act accordingly) based on the feedback they get.
5. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the First Amendment reads, in full, as follows:

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.

Mr. Thomas, neither David Hogg nor Ms. Ingraham's advertisers qualify as "Congress," and there has been no law passed that prohibits the free exercise of Ms. Ingraham. Accordingly, Mr. Thomas, criticizing right-wing provocateurs is no more a First Amendment issue than criticizing wrong-headed newspaper columnists.

I have found that reading the constitution is helpful prior to making claims as to what the constitution does and does not prohibit. That's just me.

UPDATE: Upon further review, I've got a theory as to why Mr. Thomas decided to make this an argument about the constitution, albeit an utterly wrongheaded argument that any first-year law student would smack away.

If this issue is not about the constitution, then what is it naturally about? I guess, the question, absent any constitutional question, has everything to do with who the bully/jerk is. If that's the question, we're left with, on the one hand, a teenager who recently bore witness (whether personally or by proximity) to the brutal murder of his classmates; and on the other hand, an Ivy league educated, nationally known, media personality. 

Stated another way, on the one hand we have a teenager (I'm pretty sure he's under 18, but I can't represent that as a confirmed fact) and on the other hand we have a wealthy adult with a large media platform.

Who's the bully again?