interesting point you make, straw man...
People measure just how much of the 1st amendment should be applied based upon how offensive they find the statement to be. Just hearing a getbigger say "let's compare the statements" shows this.
In reality, as ugly as it is, ANY statement should be protected - or condemned. The Founding Fathers didn't write the 1st amendment to protect kinda offensive things, but not totally offensive things.
Duck dude has just as much right as Bashir to say what they want. Yes, they have to deal with consequences from their employers, and that's totally realistic. No sane person will argue a company doesn't have this right. And yes, there are people that say some MUCH worse things, and yes, it's protected too. Let's face it, bashir is disgusting, and some people found Duck dude to be offensive or whatever... but it's all under the same umbrella of 1st amendment.
There is no "let's compare and see which is worse". They're both protected, regardless of offensiveness of content. People make some HIGHLY offensive sacreligious or racial things that are WAY worse than either of these, and it's protected too, no matter how vile.