The LGBT community should be outraged!

reply to post by jimmyx


Yes.

I have never called for anyone to be fired for their statements.

Got anything else?

Private citizens are not required to respect any individual's constitutional right to free speech. One is free to say whatever they wish, but with that freedom comes responsibility. If one says something that is distasteful to the public, then the public has a right to protest and and try the offending individual in the court of public opinion. In the case of the duck dynasty guy, his rights were not violated. He is still free to say as he wishes, and those that are offended still have the right to protest, boycott, ridicule, etc.

Personally, I think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion, but I was not offended and I can not speak for those that are/were offended. I respect their right to protest just as much as I respect the duck dynasty guy's right to make controversial remarks.

catfishjoe
It seems as if some groups are all for free speech, unless something negative is said about them. Who cares what some bearded white guy says? Not everyone is going to like you. Paper thin skin and weak as water.

So you're all about an individual's right to express himself, but you support legislating how people dress?

m.newson6.com...

Pull your pants up!!!

Tulsa is looking to pass a law banning sagging pants. First time offenders will get a warning and after that its a $25-$50 ticket.

The councilman who came up with the ordinance states it has nothing to do with race and I agree. I see more white boys doing it than blacks. Me, personally, can't stand to see kids dressing like that. Thank god my boy wants skinny jeans.....................

My friend, you are truly a thick-skinned lover of freedom.

Furthermore, this isn't even an issue of free speech. The A&E executives made a decision to suspend one of the stars of a show on their network because of comments he made in a magazine interview. Maybe they'll decide to put him back on the air, maybe he'll go to a show on a competing network and hurt their ratings, who knows? What's certain is that he won't be be fined or imprisoned by the government for his comments.

reply to post by beezzer

It will remain a crybaby issue until it happens to someone who gets fired for a pro abortion stance.

I agree with you in general terms here. Protection for any side of speech has to mean protection to all sides because attack on any is attack on all.

It's been the basis for more than the one case I've cited recently but the public tolerance of other speech like NAMBLA (ACLU's big defense effort) and others. The things the speech is about are of absolutely no comparison of course ...just the right to express it without fear of retaliation or suppression.

I'd rather tolerate the worst speech imaginable for offensive opinions...than go into any situation of having others determine by the whims of the time what is offensive and what isn't. Even if that started in favor of what I personally hold dear, eh?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I've even defended Westboro Baptist Church.

Not because I agree with those idiots, but because free speech is important!

reply to post by network dude


I can't believe that a "reality show" is being discussed on ATS.
Talk about a distraction.
What will come of this, division of the peoples and a better contract for the duck guys.
You folks have been hoodwinked.

(Edit)
And for the idiots who do not understand, nobody's rights are being violated, A$E just claims to not want that on their network. (Although I'd bet the ratings are better than ever)
This "censorship" is the same thing as ATS giving a thread they do not like the 404.
Their board, our chalk. If we do not like it, we are free to go elsewhere.
Same thing with the duck guys, there are only a million others channels to choose from.

macman
reply to post by theantediluvian

 

I stand by my statement.
Piers Morgan should be returned back to England.

I never said he should be kicked off air, fired, or silenced.

Does that make my stance clear enough for you???

*sigh* Why is this asshat still on American TV, let alone still here in the states?

Can someone please show him the door.

Seems perfectly clear to me. Piers Morgan said something you didn't like, and not only did you want him off American TV ("Why is this asshat still on American TV"), you wanted *somebody* to deport him ("let alone still here in the states?") because he expressed an opinion that differed from yours. The "somebody" could only refer to the government because who else can deport people? So in actuality, you expressed a desire for the government to kick a television personality out of the country for saying something that you didn't like.

That's waaaaaay beyond calling for his employer to put him on hiatus.

theantediluvian

Seems perfectly clear to me. Piers Morgan said something you didn't like, and not only did you want him off American TV ("Why is this asshat still on American TV"),

Oh, so I stated he should be off TV??
Care to re-quote this.

theantediluvian
you wanted *somebody* to deport him ("let alone still here in the states?") because he expressed an opinion that differed from yours.

Deporting of a non-US citizen. Sure did.
He can do his job from his home country. I never called for him to be silenced.

theantediluvian
The "somebody" could only refer to the government because who else can deport people? So in actuality, you expressed a desire for the government to kick a television personality out of the country for saying something that you didn't like.

That's waaaaaay beyond calling for his employer to put him on hiatus.

When did I call for him to be fired?

You are grasping. And failing as well.

Got anything else.

beezzer


It will remain a crybaby issue until it happens to someone who gets fired for a pro abortion stance.

If that pro abortion stance/speech hurts the business in question; they deserve to be fired. I have the right to hire and fire people in my LLCs on ANY issue I see fit. I pay the rent, taxes, payroll, insurance, workmans comp, etc. I don't need any advise on how to conduct MY livelyhood!!! By anyone!!!

It's a business decision not a free speech issue. Most businesses don't need BS in conducting businesses. It's hard enough as it is. Why is this so hard to understand?

g146541
reply to post by network dude

 

I can't believe that a "reality show" is being discussed on ATS.
Talk about a distraction.
What will come of this, division of the peoples and a better contract for the duck guys.
You folks have been hoodwinked.

It's not just about the show itself but the bigger issues the incident raised.
Who should get their rights trampled on?
A&E , or whomever made the decision to bump off Phil, has made it clear that they trump freedom of sexual orientation over freedom of religion and speech. Whether it was caused by a TV show or not, this IS an issue that should be debated. You cannot point a finger of intolerance when you are clearly guilty yourself.
To me, it is the underlying issue being discussed and causing outrage. Think of Phil as the poster boy for freedom of speech and the right to choose ones own beliefs and to express them without fear of consequence. What if your employer one day decided to pink slip you because you are Christian and he an Atheist. Would you cry foul then? What if employers started asking whether you support or are against the rights of LGBT people, and based their decision to hire you on what you say? I see a bigger picture here that just a reality show losing somebody.

reply to post by g146541

I can't believe that a "reality show" is being discussed on ATS.
Talk about a distraction.
What will come of this, division of the peoples and a better contract for the duck guys.
You folks have been hoodwinked.

I'd disagree and call it a very valid topic. Not for the immediate impact of one man losing a position on a TV show, as this has 0 impact on any of us directly.

However, the whole range of issues that brought this about and are fueling the heated exchange of opinions and feelings all over the net seem to be the focus.

Nothing more valid than that, in my personal opinion. Since, on some level, the issues involved here touch most of us in some other area of life or in some other way. Positive or negative...

Just my thoughts.

beezzer
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I've even defended Westboro Baptist Church.

Not because I agree with those idiots, but because free speech is important!

Privately owned television networks have no obligation to provide platforms for free speech. This is not a free speech issue. If Phil Robertson wants to kill ducks and say it's because "God hates fags!" he's within his rights to do so (at least during duck hunting season). If he wants to put his sentiments on poster board and parade around the streets with it, nobody should stop him. That doesn't mean A&E is obligated to pay him to star in a television show.

olaru12

beezzer


It will remain a crybaby issue until it happens to someone who gets fired for a pro abortion stance.

If that pro abortion stance/speech hurts the business in question; they deserve to be fired.

It's a business decision not a free speech issue. Most businesses don't need BS in conducting businesses. It's hard enough as it is. Why is this so hard to understand?

edit on 20-12-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

Because it is all about opinions. I think more people should be speaking out. Not just about what I agree with, but about anything!

We've become a timid country afraid to damage the delicate skin of anyone whom might be within earshot.

beezzer
reply to post by olaru12

 

If "Duck Dynasty" network A&E feared advertisers would scatter like waterfowl after a shotgun blast because of Phil Robertson's anti-gay comments ... it's not happening.

A company called Skyjacker -- which builds truck suspensions -- tells us it stands solidly behind Phil and the show ... saying it's a matter of God and country -- it's a free country and Phil has a right to his opinions.

www.tmz.com...

Seems that at least one of the sponsors is siding with Duck Dynasty.

Bad for business, A&E business.

More sponsers are siding with DD it seems than they are with A&E. I've never seen the show, if it ever comes up on NetFlix I might check it out just to see what the hub-bub is all about.

Plus the family is standing behind Phil and will no longer do the show without Phil.

I knew Duck Dynasty existed, but just after a couple days, I now know more than I ever cared too because you just can't escape the false outrage.

redhorse
reply to post by network dude

 

The whole situation is so absurd that I suspect the network was simply looking for an excuse to tank the show. In spite of it's huge popularity at the moment there are signs in the popular culture tea leaves that blow-back is imminent, so maybe they were just gettin' out while the gettin' was good.

Interesting point. Is this just another small part of the NWOs fight to rid the world of Christianity?

Question is... when does it cross the line into Hate Speech and is justified by some.

theantediluvian

beezzer
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I've even defended Westboro Baptist Church.

Not because I agree with those idiots, but because free speech is important!

Privately owned television networks have no obligation to provide platforms for free speech. This is not a free speech issue. If Phil Robertson wants to kill ducks and say it's because "God hates fags!" he's within his rights to do so (at least during duck hunting season). If he wants to put his sentiments on poster board and parade around the streets with it, nobody should stop him. That doesn't mean A&E is obligated to pay him to star in a television show.

A&E didn't axe Phil until they got a call from GLAAD.

A&E has every right to fire anyone they choose for whatever reason they so desire.

The attempt to silence, to punish someone simply because they don't agree with your views falls solely on the lap of GLAAD.

luciddream
Question is... when does it cross the line into Hate Speech and is justified by some.

It's only hate speech if it spurs violence against someone(s).

Just like Brian, if the public outcry is loud enough, Duck Dynasty will return.

So… scream to the rafters on social media.

reply to post by beezzer

We've become a timid country afraid to damage the delicate skin of anyone whom might be within earshot.

I don't think that is the case at all. From my experiences, folks don't mind one bit offending others by their words or actions. I think what really holds people back is fear of losing their job and/or a loved one over something that said or did publicly.

When I was growing up, I was taught a short list of things that I should avoid discussing in public: sex, drugs, politics and religion. That upbringing has served me well....otherwise, I'd be looking for a new job weekly. I think what people need to realize is that there are consequences for your words and actions and they need to learn to listen to their inner voice that says "self censor"....there is nothing in the world wrong with simply saying "no comment"...but choosing to comment can bring about problems and undesired consequences.