It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
buster2010
If a person is against religion it's because of hate? Nothing breeds hate more than religion.
If I don't subscribe to your ideology, and can force ATS to ban you, is that right?
LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by beezzer
If ATS wants to ban people because they disagree with their ideologies, that is their prerogative. We may not agree with their actions, but the owner's of the site have the right to make that decision.
If A&E wants to get rid of Phil because they disagree with his views, it would be their right to do so as the owners of the show.
Phil can find other mediums to express his views. There are many. He can start his own television network. He can start his own show. He can move to a network that would be more sympathetic to his views. He could use a different medium like writing books and publishing them, or creating his own website to submit his own articles on. He could even make video documentaries for the web. The possibilities for expression are endless.
In all of those instances he would have absolute, sole-right over the content. Problem solved. That's really the issue--ownership--not freedom of speech. His right to express his views has not been infringed.
beezzer
Imagine ATS if only a prescribed ideology were allowed.
But hypothetically what if we come to the point where the FCC wont give license for a new network? a new show? no network will accept a person based on their views contrary to their accepted views. No publisher or website will carry a book. And if things progress no website will be given due to new federal regulations on internet usage. And of course no medium provided in which to sell videos.
Are we really so far from this becoming reality? ATS is a business but so are the rest of these mediums. none of them are required to give a forum from which someone can share their views. If one can ban you any can ban you.
0zzymand0s
reply to post by beezzer
Idealism Is great, but Phil and the ducks live and work in a right-to-work state, and A&E can choose to fire him for just about anything.
The question is: should they? I mean - he is / was making them money, right? I think an argument can be made that it is fiduciarily irresponsible of the board at A&E, Hearst and Disney to jeopardize that particular revenue stream for their shareholders.
I mean, rules are rules, right?
beezzer
reply to post by maus80
So do don't believe in free speech. You just believe in speech that coincides with your ideology?
So do don't believe in free speech. You just believe in speech that coincides with your ideology?
beezzer
reply to post by ldyserenity
If a film had to pass a political ideology litmus test before I saw it, I'd never watch movies.
Opinions are like elbows, everyone has them. And good or bad, we should never inhibit, limit, curtail, punish, speech.
If we did that, we'd never know who the idiots were!