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.

 

If I don't subscribe to your ideology, and can force ATS to ban you, is that right?

page: 14
20
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Maybe it's because they censored Phil's saying grace too. I am under the impression they did this because of PC FCC laws. On the news they cited it was to keep the FCC from causing A&E problems.

FCC Laws and Regulations


Also it may have only been that one media outlet. If so, then it's the source not me. So please dson't kill the messenger.




posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts

Nothing there about being politically incorrect. And, as you said, he made no comments on air anyway.
The government was not involved with A&E decision.

edit on 12/22/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Right because it wasn't said in the program.
Yet they are using the premise of FCC laws to kick him off that is the entire point. They ridiculously are using a law that has no bearing on what actually happened. I guess I didn't specify that clearly. I don't know.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   

ldyserenity
It's actually because of the government that they kicked Phil off (because of laws of what's acceptable on TV)


Where are you getting that from?


boncho

For clarity, if ATS did it, under the request of another member, or the membership at large, would it be justified? For even more clarity, would you agree with it?


I didn't get to answer this this morning. Whether I agreed with it or not would depend on the "ideology" being expressed which is why this is somewhat meaningless hypothetical. If part of your ideology is libeling victims of crimes I see no problem with limiting your speech. If you are expressing your ideology the way someone like Bill White did I have no problem with limiting your speech. Short of that I probably wouldn't agree with it. But it's not my bat and ball.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 




Yet they are using the premise of FCC laws to kick him off that is the entire point.

Again, where do you get that from?

“We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”

www.mediaite.com...



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Who wouldn't want to believe that. The NSA is only collecting the "metadata"

I've lost faith in my Government to put anything beyond them - sad but true.

I judged the tree by the fruit it bared and - it was rotten...



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts

Nothing there about being politically incorrect. And, as you said, he made no comments on air anyway.
The government was not involved with A&E decision.

edit on 12/22/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


No I heard it was the fear of the FCC coming down on the network that's what I stated in another post. But like I said that was from the one actual news report that I heard it may be incorrect. But That is what I was under the assumption of that they pulled him because of fear of Government regulations. And it is truly ridiculous. I'm just saying I think we're in agreement here. Too much fear of government from them being over-reaching and over regulating.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 




But That is what I was under the assumption of that they pulled him because of fear of Government regulations.

Got it.
Something you have an issue with. Must be the govmint.
edit on 12/22/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   

ldyserenity
No I heard it was the fear of the FCC coming down on the network that's what I stated in another post. But like I said that was from the one actual news report that I heard it may be incorrect.


You need to produce a link for that.

This had nothing to do with the government, not much to do with GLAAD and a whole lot to do with a recognition of the financial demographics of gays and the people who support them.`



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
If they did so, A&E pull him off because of only their beliefs alone than they are within their own rights. Let me make that clear. Okay. No the government isn't interfering with their decision at all, and shouldn't no. That's their prerogative. However than the people can speak with boycotts, of which I am planning to do. By knocking my Cable bill down by removing those networks owned by the Disney/Hearsts. I think I made that clear.

Government has and should have no freaking say either way what the company does that is my entire point. Let the people make the call. Period.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   

DelMarvel

ldyserenity
No I heard it was the fear of the FCC coming down on the network that's what I stated in another post. But like I said that was from the one actual news report that I heard it may be incorrect.


You need to produce a link for that.

This had nothing to do with the government, not much to do with GLAAD and a whole lot to do with a recognition of the financial demographics of gays and the people who support them.`


It was local radio and honestly I can't even remember what station. So sorry this is jsut something I had heard not read so there's no link I can even provide.

But anyway if it's wrong and I am wrong I apologize.

That said I never saw anybody saying the government should make them accept Phil back, I said that the public has the right to speak out without being nailed to the cross.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by DelMarvel
 


One has to ask though - how many gays do you see running around in DD gear , how many more will there likely be now. A&E is going to risk losing the highest rated reality show in the history of reality TV for what? Because some people in some demographic were upset and of course the apologists who cower anytime anyone their same color, creed or religious preference says something controversial. How many more rallied to Phils side who didn't even know who he was before this. A&E has made a bad financial move on this one and it may not sink them but they are gonna feel it.
edit on 22-12-2013 by WWJFKD because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by WWJFKD
 

I'm sure they didn't consider that at all in making their decision.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   

beezzer
Yet you feel that Phil Robertson should be punished by expressing his free speech.


The right of free speech, in the United States, is specific to government controls or intervention. Specific to free speech, the first amendment guarantees the government will make no laws abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. This has no application in the private sector.

Every person engaging in an entertainment contract, sports contract, or high-profile corporate position will have numerous clauses the define certain behaviors, some of which pertain to public expression of controversial ideas… especially in entertainment contracts. You can be certain that those appearing on-screen in A&E's Duck Dynasty had numerous clauses (as has been reported in the media) that define public behavior… and that Phil's comments in an on-the-record interview with an international magazine broke those clauses.

This is not a freedom of speech issue Anyone couching it as such is being deceptive.

He is being punished for breaking an agreement with the network.


That being said…


I personally believe his comments to be contemptible. I don't "buy" the calls of the words being twisted or misrepresented by the supporters of the Robertson family.

However… I think the network and the "gay community" grossly mishandled this. It was an ideal event to change the narrative from anger to one of "why does this type of intolerance continue today, and how can it be fixed?"

I also firmly believe Gentleman's Quarterly knew exactly what they were doing, and hoping for this precise outcome.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


So what then was their motivation?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I have an issue with protecting the first amendment rights. It isn't going to hurt some Gay people that Phil don't like them. Or that he thinks low of them they don't need his approval, and since he makes no laws I'm sure they could really care less of his opinions, the only people who probably care is A&E and the Government. (Via FCC) so... I have a problem with infringing any so means with the right of free speech.
I think I made that clear in my first response to this.

So forgive me for wanting the right to say whatever the hell I please.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by WWJFKD
 

I've stated it several times. Avoiding loss of advertising revenue.

What do you think their motive was?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   

ldyserenity
I have an issue with protecting the first amendment rights.

It has nothing to do with that.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Yeah but this forum and site are set up to be a public debate area so differing views are encouraged. It's not really a valid question. Because then you would have to narrow it down to what view does skeptic overlord want on the site on every issue here. It's a deep question, really but I don't think it's answerable in this context?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 

You can say whatever you wish here (within the T&Cs).
As far as "free speech" goes...see the post from SO above.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join