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

reply to post by beezzer


What, after all I've said and done over the years, makes you think I don't support Phil's freedom of speech? Please read my last post.

reply to post by beezzer

beezzer
I won't side with anyone or any group that would inhibit or punish the free expression of ideas.

So, you don't support the Patriot Guard?

PS - I'm not "SIDING" with anyone in this matter. They're BOTH right.

reply to post by beezzer

And exchange of ideas is key. Not the inhibition of expression, through censorship or threat of punishment.

Society inhibits, coherces, rewards and punishes people all the time in so many ways we can't even count them. This is how we change, grow, regulate our behavior - for good or ill

None of that means you don't have the right to say what you want to say - in this country

This story isn't over yet anyhow

This process is a natural process - there is only a black and white position while you're looking at it - hard and up close and personal like. If you pull back and look at it through the wide angle lens, you might see what a beautiful thing all this bickering really is

It was freedom of expression that permitted Phil to speak his mind, and freedom of expression that allowed people to criticize his opinion, and freedom of expression that allowed A&E to dump him. There are no guarantees in life - and he upset the apple cart. Tough luck Phil. Your next contract (however) will probably allow you to say all sorts of stuff - wherever and whenever you want

All this to say - you have a point beezzer. You just refuse to accept your own point :-)

At a party once, a while back, I defended Paris Hilton's right to privacy after her sex tape went public. It was me against an angry, united mob...

You get points for sticking to your guns

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

Spiramirabilis
You get points for sticking to your guns

If only he were. He is picking ONE side and defending their right to free speech, while demonizing the other side for the same thing! That's hypocrisy in all its glory. GLAAD and A&E have the exact same rights as Phil, but they seem not to matter in this case to many.

It shows inconsistency of thought, prejudice and hypocrisy.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Nope it doesn't.

I would support GLAAD's rebuttal.
I would support A&E's rebuttal.

What I don't support is the punitive actions taken.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


This is why all of us have a responsibility to stay vigilant.

Society has a way of censoring itself sometimes.

Which is why big-mouthed opinionated people like me need to speak up and sometimes shout to remind people that it's okay to disagree. Heck, it's often encouraged.

But it should never be okay to silence someone.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Beezzer set a trap, got caught in his own trap - and is now in the process of trying to chew his foot off so he can get out

:-)

He knows it - he's just stubborn

But, for all of that - I do admire his tenacity

Nobody has been silenced, they have been sacked.

reply to post by beezzer

Which is why big-mouthed opinionated people like me need to speak up and sometimes shout to remind people that it's okay to disagree. Heck, it's often encouraged.

Thank you beezzer - ATS would be less with out you. Like Duck Dynasty without Phil - and without ducks

But it should never be okay to silence someone.

Who got silenced?

:-)

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Beezzer set a trap, got caught in his own trap - and is now in the process of trying to chew his foot off so he can get out

:-)

He knows it - he's just stubborn

But, for all of that - I do admire his tenacity

No trap. If I made an imperfect example, then I am flawed. I'll caveat to that in a second.

It still doesn't change the fact that I feel that this is punitive and that it is a free speech issue.

Many have taken sides.

The next time OWS, gets suppressed for what they want to say, I will support them as well.
The next time GLAAD gets suppressed for what they say, I will support them as well.

My "side" is on the free expression, the free exchange of ideas.

Not suppression. Not punitive actions. Not censorship.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

also -

It shows inconsistency of thought, prejudice and hypocrisy.

It does at that

But like a lot of arguments, I think some people think the details and flaws in an argument will be lost in things like flag waving or the championing of freedom of speech...

beezzer


My "side" is on the free expression, the free exchange of ideas.

Not suppression. Not punitive actions. Not censorship.

As on ATS; real life and the real world has a system of Terms and Conditions.

Ignore them at your own peril.

Don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense!!

reply to post by beezzer

beezzer
It still doesn't change the fact that I feel that this is punitive and that it is a free speech issue.

I KNOW you feel that way, but that doesn't make it fact.

1. It is punitive. So what? There are consequences in life. If you say something here and get dinged by the staff, that's punitive, too. If I say something blatantly critical of bikers, gay people, handicapped people, black people, women or men, for that matter, I might be punished in some way. I probably deserved it.

2. I don't care if you think it's a Free Speech issue. You're wrong. His speech is allowed. He's not in jail, hasn't been arrested, and no laws are being made to shut him up. Just because someone loses their job because of something they said doesn't equate it to free speech. You're just wrong on this. For it to be a free speech issue, the government would have to be involved.

The next time OWS, gets suppressed for what they want to say, I will support them as well.
The next time GLAAD gets suppressed for what they say, I will support them as well.

BS! GLAAD is being punished for what they said! And you take up arms against them, not support them!!

GLAAD is experiencing record levels of backlash.

“In the five-and-a-half years I’ve worked at GLAAD, I’ve never received so many violently angry phone calls and social media posts attacking GLAAD for us speaking out against these comments,” the media watchdog organization’s vice president of communications Rich Ferraro told TheWrap.

He said those reactions range from those who simply believe as Robertson believes to those who feel that GLAAD and A&E’s actions limit the reality star’s free speech.

Look up "suppress". It means to STOP or prevent. Phil's words were in a national publication! To say that he was stopped is just hyperbole and simply FALSE. It's a fantasy. But it fits your agenda.

My "side" is on the free expression, the free exchange of ideas.

Yeah, as long as you agree with it...

GLAAD Backlash

reply to post by olaru12

As on ATS; real life and the real world has a system of Terms and Conditions.

YUP . . . and the ranting hereon against life's written TERMS AND CONDITIONS in The Manual . . . is endless. And it used to be that those standing up for The Manual were hounded, baited, provoked until they committed a bannable offense. Thankfully, that doesn't happen much any more, imho.

However, the phenomenon in society in a diversity of ways is intensifying. I pray ATS is able to resist the push to go back to the old days and worse.

reply to post by tetra50

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


So GLAAD is the victim here?

Good luck with that.

reply to post by beezzer


GLAAD is as much a victim as Phil Robertson is. I'm not taking sides.

In my mind, neither are victims. It's just a bunch of stuff that happened. BOTH are right, in fact.

Good grief. This isn't a free speech issue. IT'S A PUBLICITY STUNT! They have you talking about a stupid TV show as though it raises constitutional issues.

reply to post by DJW001


It's not a constitutional issue in so much as it is a societal issue.

We should never be afraid of expression. We can disagree, we can rebut, but we should never look to, or cause by any means, punishment on those with whom we disagree with.

beezzer
reply to post by DJW001

 

It's not a constitutional issue in so much as it is a societal issue.

We should never be afraid of expression. We can disagree, we can rebut, but we should never look to, or cause by any means, punishment on those with whom we disagree with.

I agree, but that's not exactly what is happening here. By making an outrageous statement, a "reality TV" celebrity has garnered attention in quarters they otherwise might not. Getting fired is just part of the plan. He'll be re-hired, amidst much publicity, in time for the next season.