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

beezzer
This is a thread dedicated to a question that I just got a couple of replies from, but hope to end this whole Duck Dynasty issue.

A couple of caveats.

Did Phil Robertson say something that he believes in?
Yes.

Did A&E have the freedom to fire him?
Yes.

Now answer the question that is the title of the thread.

Of course I have no power to control ATS to ban anyone.

But this speaks to the free exchange of ideas. Does that still exist?

I look forward to the answers.

beez

A couple of major differences here. We are not employed by ATS with a contract. He breached the contract therefore he was fired. When the Dixie Chicks was lambasted by the country music media, did you defend them?

The issue I have is people asking right-wing fundies questions about gay marriage expecting them to answer differently. They know what the answer will be but always act surprised. I didn't know who this guy was before this whole fiasco so maybe it's working in his favor.

SkepticOverlord

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 was thinking the exact same thing. I think what A&E should have done was launch a huge PSA campaign on their network, with the head honchos talking about how they feel about this type of intolerance, and how it needs to end. They could also feature PSAs with other "stars" from their other shows - there are plenty of them, I'm sure - who would also testify how they feel about intolerance and how we should all work toward ending it. That makes A&E look like the good guys taking the high road, and it makes Phil look like the bad, intolerant guy.

If ATS was charging you to view this website, and you posted something that they didn't like, absolutely. Even now, if you were to post something the OP editor deemed inflammatory or negative, they can and would probably ban you. We all have a right to free speech but that's limited to public forums. This site is not really "public". Sure, anyone can read posts but one needs to "agree" or "accept" the rules and conditions of the site to post. If you post things that the site doesn't agree to or deems inappropriate, out you go.
This guy from Duck Dynasty (never seen the show) can say whatever he want's but A&E is not required to pay him for this. If he wants to use his Free Speech to talk about homosexuality and gay marriage, he needs to go the the Boston Commons, get a soapbox, stand on it and bark away.

Benevolent Heretic
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.

Right that's right but they're taking his profits from him, but like I said he went against the contract so, it's no point in going over this again.

It's all been covered. Yes in his private life he can think/say whatever but in his public life according to the contract he can't so. But I think that is a retarded part of the contract. But that's neither here nor there. Point is the fact that we can choose if we personally watch or not regardless.

That's what I believe instead of crying to the media shut up and don't interfere let people choose.

I choose not to watch DD cause I think it sucks and also never had to hear his beliefs to know what they were (BULL PLOP) So I never watched. You can just tell I mean they are millionaires despite the "Act"they put on. I would not go cry to the media to take their racist, evangelical oppressive views off the air (I just pray for the demise of the show) while I don't watch...and not for this either but for it being a bad show altogether (You know like hoping their numbers tank).

So for me to speak up in their favor is not a small feat.

Free speech isn't just about socially acceptable ideas, thoughts. It isn't just about great orations, or beautiful poetry.

Free speech also helps us all to identify the racists, bigots, haters, morons, idiots.

When free speech becomes curtailed, the we are left with a beauty pageant. Rehearsed scripts, pretty smiles, phony bodies and clean teeth.

reply to post by wrkn4livn


And this speaks to something I discussed earlier today in one of these threads. Free speech zones. Fenced in areas where one can speak of their views to their hearts content well out of earshot of anyone. Is this free speech?

Free speech, in my opinion, should be all or nothing, black or white, zero gray area.......BUT... That means you can NEVER be charged or prosecuted for that speech, which is different from the Duck Dynasty issue where they had every right to fire him due to clauses written in the contract. Free speech protects you from being prosecuted, but it doesn't protect you from consequences you could see from family, friends, employers, community, etc...

reply to post by beezzer

beezzer
When free speech becomes curtailed, the we are left with a beauty pageant. Rehearsed scripts, pretty smiles, phony bodies and clean teeth.

What you say is true. But Phil's Free Speech was not curtailed. He was suspended for voicing offensive and disrespectful views. He's still FREE to talk about his views all he wants.

Jeez, Beez, you're smart enough to know this isn't a free speech issue... It's not involved here...

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by beezzer

 

beezzer
When free speech becomes curtailed, the we are left with a beauty pageant. Rehearsed scripts, pretty smiles, phony bodies and clean teeth.

What you say is true. But Phil's Free Speech was not curtailed. He was suspended for voicing offensive and disrespectful views. He's still FREE to talk about his views all he wants.

Jeez, Beez, you're smart enough to know this isn't a free speech issue... It's not involved here...

While Phil can still speak, there was a punitive action taken as a direct result of his free expression.

So I'd say that it is about curtailing free expression.

Cuervo

beezzer
This is a thread dedicated to a question that I just got a couple of replies from, but hope to end this whole Duck Dynasty issue.

A couple of caveats.

Did Phil Robertson say something that he believes in?
Yes.

Did A&E have the freedom to fire him?
Yes.

Now answer the question that is the title of the thread.

Of course I have no power to control ATS to ban anyone.

But this speaks to the free exchange of ideas. Does that still exist?

I look forward to the answers.

beez

A couple of major differences here. We are not employed by ATS with a contract. He breached the contract therefore he was fired. When the Dixie Chicks was lambasted by the country music media, did you defend them?

The issue I have is people asking right-wing fundies questions about gay marriage expecting them to answer differently. They know what the answer will be but always act surprised. I didn't know who this guy was before this whole fiasco so maybe it's working in his favor.

This right here^^^ EXACTLY!

However they did enter into the contract knowing saying this stuff was gonna get him canned.

Too bad he didn't understand his terms.

So no he wasn't infringed as I had thought. Not knowing prior of his contract since I really don't watch DD or haven't really kept up, but there is a reason the whole issue was put in the contract...that was to limit freedom of speech which shouldn't be put in there to begin with. Every person should be able to choose to watch or not without pre - infringement on speech. Except for outwardly pejorative remarks and obscenity which I couldn't give a fig about but mostly everyone else does so leave it in there, but not every thing like say believing homosexuality is against God because honestly that is something that he really believes and so do millions of other people of christian and Muslim and other faiths do too.

reply to post by beezzer


And what do you know? Robertson was free to speak his mind and certain demographics labeled his as a racist, bigot, hater etc. He still has the right to talk about those views wherever he wants. He just can't do it in front of millions of people on his employer's channel until his employer says it's ok. Please explain how his free speech has been infringed upon.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

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

Absolutely. Anyone who read the piece could see he was being led to slaughter. But, I don't think they pretended that it was anything other than what it was. They just wound him up and let him go - and then wrote it down. He actually should have seen it coming

reply to post by beezzer


So I work in retail. Let's say I start calling my African American customers dumb n*****s and my Jewish customers shifty k***s. Do you think I should be fired?

reply to post by ldyserenity


Its worth mentioning not only does he believe this, he also believes that making people aware of their sins could help lead them to their salvation and I am not elaborating on that one - suffice it to say his comments however misunderstood were made out of good will.

This old hick is deeper than you might realize or believe.

WWJFKD
reply to post by wrkn4livn

 

And this speaks to something I discussed earlier today in one of these threads. Free speech zones. Fenced in areas where one can speak of their views to their hearts content well out of earshot of anyone. Is this free speech?

Well, it sure looks that way. Just like they were set up at recent Dem/Rep Conventions.
The point is, A&E DOES have control over what their paid employee's can and cannot say. Just like your boss (if you have a boss that is...).

reply to post by beezzer

While Phil can still speak, there was a punitive action taken as a direct result of his free expression.

So I'd say that it is about curtailing free expression.

Do you think that a person has a right to be employed no matter what they do?

You think A&E was cowardly for giving him the boot - but what I hear you saying is that the anti-Phil lobby is less important to you than the pro-Phil crowd. It's your personal preference that matters in this argument - not A&E's - they just didn't choose what you wanted

It bothers you that they caved. You don't see it as them being angry about his behavior

He works for them - not the other way around. He's a commodity - sure - and they still said he has to go

That was their choice - and their right. They have freedom of expression too you know :-)

reply to post by beezzer

beezzer
While Phil can still speak, there was a punitive action taken as a direct result of his free expression.

The punitive action wasn't taken by the government so free speech is NOT involved. That's simply consequences for one's actions.

Xcalibur254
reply to post by beezzer

 

So I work in retail. Let's say I start calling my African American customers dumb n*****s and my Jewish customers shifty k***s. Do you think I should be fired?

Absolutely.

beezzer
reply to post by boncho

 

I can't get a friggin' answer to save my life!!!!!

That may be partly due to your horribly over simplified analogy and your blanket refusal to allow discussion by asking the same yes/no question over and over.

I found your thread frustrating to read as you trolled your way through questions from people who took time to engage you. In saying that I usually enjoy reading your post's.

It's my opinion that while holding a public position you can and should be fired for sharing views that are widely unpopular.

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by beezzer

 

beezzer
While Phil can still speak, there was a punitive action taken as a direct result of his free expression.

The punitive action wasn't taken by the government so free speech is NOT involved. That's simply consequences for one's actions.

Whether it's government curtailing speech or small sections in society curtailing free speech, it's still an inhibition.