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

If you could convince Springer, SO, and crew to ban someone simply because they disagreed with your ideology it would be right. Maybe not ethically but at the same time they own the site and can ban people for whatever reason. At the same time if they started banning people for no other reason than beezer said so I think they would start seeing a lot less people choosing to use their site.

Phil Robertson's right to free speech has not been violated. He can still say what ever here want wherever he wants. At the same time your First Amendment right still stand as well. If you disagree with A&E's business decision boycott them. Not only that boycott their sponsors. Make it known that the reason these sponsors are losing money is because they support a company whose business practices you disagree with. Time and time again I see people on this site complain about things being unfair and nothing more. Guess what? Life's not fair. Whining won't change that. You've actually got to take action.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


So having one specific ideology determining where you can express your ideology is acceptable to you?

Thanks for your input.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Please don't ban me Beezzer I just got a sweet new avatar.

reply to post by WWJFKD


(laughing)

You're safe.

Everyone is safe.

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

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....

Xcalibur254
If you could convince Springer, SO, and crew to ban someone simply because they disagreed with your ideology it would be right. Maybe not ethically but at the same time they own the site and can ban people for whatever reason. At the same time if they started banning people for no other reason than beezer said so I think they would start seeing a lot less people choosing to use their site.

Phil Robertson's right to free speech has not been violated. He can still say what ever here want wherever he wants. At the same time your First Amendment right still stand as well. If you disagree with A&E's business decision boycott them. Not only that boycott their sponsors. Make it known that the reason these sponsors are losing money is because they support a company whose business practices you disagree with. Time and time again I see people on this site complain about things being unfair and nothing more. Guess what? Life's not fair. Whining won't change that. You've actually got to take action.

But A&E doesn't have the right to kick him of the show because it was not in the show it was in an interview. Yes they are worried about boycotting, obviously because of what he said and that's why they kicked him off. BUT there is also the boycotting for kicking him off too. I agree. The point is they also removed "In Jesus' name" in the Duck Dynasty episodes while they're saying grace, worried about offending the people who don't believe in Jesus....this is way too ridiculous. Let people make their own decisions, most people who watch the show are already the people who have the same outlook on life as the people in the show, or they like really horrible TV shows (not that there's really quality TV anymore), and if they like it, Jesus or hating gays isn't really going to effect their watching the show anyway. If it does it would be so insignificant that A&E wouldn't even suffer. Here is the net worth of HALF of the ownership of A&E
Hearst

The other half is Disney, no I don't think it would have caused too much distress of they lost some viewers.

reply to post by beezzer


So having more government regulation over private businesses is acceptable to you?

Good to know.

reply to post by beezzer

When Beezzer wants to ban you,
this is what it looks like...

tehe

Xcalibur254
reply to post by beezzer

 

So having more government regulation over private businesses is acceptable to you?

Good to know.

Not sure where you saw that I said that.

As I've always stated, A&E was within their cowardly right to can Duck Dynasty.

It was GLAAD who has shown that they were intolerant.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Wait, WHUT???
Where is there any mention of this in any of Beezer's posts? It's actually because of the government that they kicked Phil off (because of laws of what's acceptable on TV) Which is totally bogus in this case anyway, since it wasn't aired on the program but was in a WRITTEN INTERVIEW. So it still has nada to do with the show itself nor the network. I think when I pay my cable next month I am going to have them take out the networks owned by Disney and Hearst Corp. Just because I don't believe in their decision.

reply to post by ltinycdancerg


That was seriously messed up.

But accurate!

reply to post by ldyserenity

It's actually because of the government that they kicked Phil off

And you know this how? You said yourself no laws were violated.

“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...

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....

Were a forum for discussing conspiracy - I definitely see a conspiracy with Sandy Hook and once again like 911 it fuels a larger agenda. But its not my house... This is why I will never be a moderator. I wouldn't want to try to keep this bunch under control.

reply to post by ldyserenity

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

Where did you come by that little piece of data?

A&E never mentioned anything of the sort.

reply to post by beezzer


And XCalibur never said that "having one specific ideology determining where you can express your ideology is acceptable". You stuffed words in his mouth and then he did the same to you. Shoe on the other foot perhaps?

Here's a helpful list of things Hearst owns:
List of assets

Disney owned assets:
Disney List of Assets

Call me a scrooge I know my kid will.

WWJFKD

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....

Were a forum for discussing conspiracy - I definitely see a conspiracy with Sandy Hook and once again like 911 it fuels a larger agenda. But its not my house... This is why I will never be a moderator. I wouldn't want to try to keep this bunch under control.

I agree, but isn't it strange that it's totally off limits? That's a conspiracy in itself..hahahahaa

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.

reply to post by beezzer

Not so much banning per se, but I think the subject has been deemed LOL as soon as it rears its head.

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...