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: 15
20
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


it doesn't wash - they have had advertisers come forward in support - all. of course not. I'm betting some of them are a bit more concerned with losing this cash cow then what some portion of a demographic who doesn't even watch the show cares. This is about money not feelings and everyone here is losing money.




posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   

jhn7537

beezzer

jhn7537

beezzer
reply to post by WWJFKD
 


(laughing)

You're safe.

Everyone is safe.

I think we should encourage more speech! Even anti-beez speech!


What are your thoughts on ATS banning the conspiracies towards Sandy Hook? In a true open format all discussions should be fair game, right? I find it odd that we can discuss some crazy 9/11 conspiracies (where many families have been hurt), but Sandy Hook is off limits....


Not sure. I didn't even know ATS was banning threads about that. I've even participated in a few.


Springer has mentioned on multiple occasions about this topic...

I just ran a quick search and was able to pull up a thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Freedom of speech isn't just about saying the right things, but also allowing for dumb things to be said.

I can't say that I agree with the move.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


And I clearly said what they did wasn't exactly ethical. However that's capitalism for you. It doesn't matter if it's ethical as long as the bottom line wins out in the end.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by WWJFKD
 


Then I'll ask the question again.
What do you think the motivation was? To lose revenue?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I think the duck commander brand will make a lot of money from this. At least a temporary spike in revenue. I've already seen social media posts to support duck commander and to make sure you are buying duck commander brand this Christmas instead of duck dynasty brand.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   

WWJFKD
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)


I read an article that said they will have him back in january i think the cast made it very difficult for them by saying shows over without him.So in the end they will lay low wait for the head hunters to leave then trot him back out again. Now in light of all that there is a political correctness theme in the background. The network has the right to air the show the only reason they panicked was because they feared a backlash from the public. But the reality is i really dont think many gay or lesbians watch duck dynasty so in the long run no harm done.

Heres an article where cracker barrel changed there mind about pulling their products.

money.cnn.com...

And heres one of A and E changing there mind as well so i guess we can say people are allowed to say what they believe.

www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   

SkepticOverlord

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

It has nothing to do with that.


Like I said he has the right to speak of his beliefs he did NOT make any remark on how the people themselves are just what he believes (That it's against GOD) so again his freedom to speak is being infringed upon. His right to speak is being infringed upon. He didn't call them denigrating remarks or say anything prerogative. SO you are wrong.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Well if we are to follow the proverbial money trail here - is that not what occurred? Why would such a business making oodles of money cut off its nose to spite its face? It doesn't make good business sense so i can't help but wonder what the underlying motivation was. That's all I'm saying and probably in the wrong thread. Sorry Beez - there are so many i forgot what one i was in - Geez did i just take on Phage?




posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 

Who is stopping him from saying anything he wants to? Who is stopping him from continuing to do so?

He said what he wanted to say and he meant it. Apparently he stepped out of his contractual bounds in doing so and encountered consequences.

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



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Phage
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.


Right. And so What I didn't know is his contract states that he should not discuss this in interviews and so apparently he knew this when he took the job, so there's no point in arguing anymore. His contract was breached though I don't think it's an ethical contract. Too bad he signed that contract. Too bad for him.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by WWJFKD
 




Why would such a business making oodles of money cut off its nose to spite its face?

People are known to screw up on occasion.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by ldyserenity
 

Who is stopping him from saying anything he wants to? Who is stopping him from continuing to do so?

He said what he wanted to say and he meant it. Apparently he stepped out of his contractual bounds in doing so and encountered consequences.

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


Yet A&E didn't do anything until AFTER GLAAD contacted them.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


With all due respect,

A&E didn't do anything about this issue until GLAAD contacted them.

Then A&E used (as an excuse and a poor one at that) contracts to axe Phil.

Good speech, bad speech, smart speech, idiotic speech. . . . . the second that any kind of speech is inhibited, there is a net loss as a society.

In my humble opinion.

Regards,



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 



ldyserenity
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.


You "have that impression"? Where did you get that impression? You state something as fact and then back it up with "I have that impression"???



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Yet A&E didn't do anything until AFTER GLAAD contacted them.


That is part of what bothers me about A&E's motivation. It's blatant and being friendly toward anyone isn't a part of it, IMO. After all, we've learned A&E had a publicist at the interview and whatever specific things he hadn't said right in front of her, had been said similarly when she was present as well as being very much in character to him.

They threw a 5 alarm fit after it published ..then after the complaints came in organized ways. That does say it's a P.R. move and not a values judgement of the Network. Objection should have come in the start and when he's well known to say things like this anyway? Missing a few comments isn't much to explain that.

Good Point...



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

WWJFKD
reply to post by Phage
 


Well if we are to follow the proverbial money trail here - is that not what occurred? Why would such a business making oodles of money cut off its nose to spite its face? It doesn't make good business sense so i can't help but wonder what the underlying motivation was. That's all I'm saying and probably in the wrong thread. Sorry Beez - there are so many i forgot what one i was in - Geez did i just take on Phage?




Don't feel bad I've had to all day today it seems I am a target today....



back to the thread, maybe Phil needed to have a lawyer explain his contract to him....although I still stand behind the fact that the people who really watch the show aren't of a different mind they believe exactly what the DD people believe so they would not have lost any revenue at all. The other networks wouldn't either because you're likely not even going to know what they also own I had to look it up. And if there were enough people that were up in arms about it, then it was a business decision. And they have the right but the people who actually watch the show are also to be considered. And people have got to be able to make their own choices, without shoving it down everyone else's throats of it not the company and not the government. Everybody has a mind use it...I hardly think that a number 250 on the forbes 500 list is going to miss a little blip in their funds or lack thereof. Just saying .
edit on 2013/12/22 by ldyserenity because: clarification.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


A&E has already stated that Phil will be in the first few episodes next season, as they have already been recorded. They are not "having him back".



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 




Yet A&E didn't do anything until AFTER GLAAD contacted them.

Your point? Even if true?
They got a complaint, followed up, found that Phil had said some outrageous things, and acted within their legal rights to suspend him because of it.

Phil can continue to say outrageous things. No one is stopping him.
If he still has a job or how long his suspension lasts, remains to be seen.
edit on 12/22/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


And he still has the right so speak his mind. Just like A&E has the right to turn a profit. They saw a threat to said profit and took some preemptive steps. Robertson wasn't fired. He's been put on hiatus (I wouldn't be surprised if he's still getting paid.) I'm guessing A&E is just taking this time to do a cost-benefit analysis. Filming for the next season is still months off. So if it is deemed that the show will mak more money with Robertson than without no one will even realize that this non-issue occurred.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 



ldyserenity
Like I said he has the right to speak of his beliefs he did NOT make any remark on how the people themselves are just what he believes (That it's against GOD) so again his freedom to speak is being infringed upon. His right to speak is being infringed upon. He didn't call them denigrating remarks or say anything prerogative. SO you are wrong.


SO is right. Our Freedom of Speech rights prevent the GOVERNMENT from shutting us up. The government was not involved in this at all. Phil has not been arrested, nor charged with breaking any laws. He is FREE to SPEAK. There have been no laws made that prohibit people from speaking about their religious views to the media. NO ONE, not the government OR A&E of GLAAD stopped Phil from talking about his beliefs.

There is no guarantee that you will keep your job if you say things publicly that offend or insult a large portion of people.

So, YOU are wrong.
Phil's rights have NOT been infringed upon.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join