I never really got the whoopla about Rush anyways, he says something that offensive at least once a month.  

Perhaps you missed the calls for the government to go after Rush.  Leaving calls like these out of your discussion makes your criticism of Palin seem uninformed at best.

FCC should clear Limbaugh from airwaves

File an FCC complaint against your local station that carries Rush

Have the FCC Remove Rush Limbaugh From the Radio

In Novosel, the court ruled that a private corporation, in this case Nationwide Insurance, infringed upon its employee's right to political expression by terminating him, because that employee refused to participate in the Nationwide's lobbying efforts at the Pennsylvania State Legislature to pass a no-fault insurance law. In remanding that case back to civil court for trial, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals noted that:

"Although Novosel is not a government employee, the public employee cases do not confine themselves to the narrow question of state action. Rather, these cases suggest that an important public policy is in fact implicated wherever the power to hire and fire is utilized to dictate the terms of employee political activities. In dealing with public employees, the cause of action arises directly from the Constitution rather than from common law developments. The protection of important political freedoms, however, goes well beyond the question whether the threat comes from state or private bodies. The inquiry before us is whether the concern for the rights of political expression and association which animated the public employee cases is sufficient to state a public policy under Pennsylvania law. While there are no Pennsylvania cases squarely on this point, we believe that the clear direction of the opinions promulgated by the state's courts suggests that this question be answered in the affirmative." (Emphasis is mine.)

(It should be noted that at no time did Mr. Novosel offer any public statements in opposition to either his employer's political position or impede its lobbying efforts in Harrisburg, nor was he a government relations specialist whose job it would have been to promote the Nationwide's interests at the State Capitol. He was simply a district claims manager who apparently disagreed personally with the legislation, and thus could not in good conscience support it.)

The Court nevertheless argued that Mr. Novosel's freedom of political expression was infringed upon, when Nationwide Insurance pressured him to lobby the legislature on an issue with which he was not in political agreement, and then fired him for his unnwillingness to publicly support their efforts in Harrisburg.

My question is purely hypothetical:

Let's say Ozzie Guillen refuses his bosses' entreaties to offer a mea culpa regarding his prior statements about Fidel Castro, subsequently leading to his summary dismissal by the Miami Marlins.

Wouldn't Novosel v. Nationwide Insur. then possibly apply under that scenario, since the Marlins -- purely for purposes of public relations, I might add -- are pressuring Guillen to publicly denounce Castro, even though he doesn't necessarily agree personally with that sentiment? Or is Novosel too narrow a ruling, given that Guillen already offered a prior public political statement with which his employer decided to disagree ex post facto?

Link

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Yet, of course, congress has made many laws abridging these rights.  Not to mention the others outlined in the amendment.