Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson's comments.

[WWWTT]

I'm sure that this little flare up over what this TV personality has said in a GQ magazine interview is worth it's own thread.

Apparently 45% of Americans would actually agree with them!

Also there was some race comments that were made in the same interview.

From what I have read, at this point, I'm going to have to side with Shady and say that there's nothing wrong with Phil expressing his opinion.

Personally, judging from his graphic description and the extent of his comments, I don't really think he cares about the impact of what he may say has on the TV show that other family members may want to continue. Sounds selfish to me and stereo typically red neck.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/the-real-em-duck-dynasty-em-scandal-phil-robertsons-comments-on-race/282538/

WWWTT

[jacee]

Well first, let's be clear on what was said:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/18/showbiz/duck-dynasty-suspension/

"It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical," he's quoted as saying.

Asked what, in his mind, is sinful, Robertson replied: "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."

He also made comments regarding race and growing up in Louisiana before the civil rights era."I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field. ... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people' -- not a word!

"Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues," GQ quotes Robertson as saying.

Well, I can see why Duck Dynasty execs might be concerned about such bad publicity.

Of course he is free to speak his mind. And sometimes there are consequences to speaking your mind. Life goes on.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4472178?ir=Gay+Voices

Sarah Palin joined Jindal in decrying A&E for Robertson's suspension, saying, "Free speech is an endangered species. Those 'intolerants' hatin' and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us," she said.

Like many of the extreme right, Palin confuses 'freedom of speech' with freedom from the consequences of offending others. No such luck: People who disagree and are offended are also free to speak their mind. And that just might include your employer!

I predict he'll be back on the set as soon as the furor dies down. Maybe he'll even make an apology.

.

[Mighty AC]

From what I have read, at this point, I'm going to have to side with Shady and say that there's nothing wrong with Phil expressing his opinion.

Robertson is free to express his opinion that homosexuality was wrong and that blacks were better off without full civil rights. Nobody is stopping Phil from speaking or attempting to lock him up for saying those words. Dozens of news outlets will publish or air anything he says. He can go online and blog about his views and millions of people will share and spread his words.

However, A&E is not required to provide Phil with the platform to deliver messages the company disagrees with. I think the christian right, anti free speech claims, are really just a straw man setup to avoid having to discuss the validity of the ugly things Robertson said.

[BubberMiley]

If he had said something disparaging to the U.S. military instead of homosexuals, there would be no petition to bring him back and there would be no "free speech" issue. Because he said something that these people largely agree with, there's a petition. This is fine, but I don't see why they don't just come out and admit that the reason why they are protesting is because they agree with him. Sort of cowardly, really.

[Boges]

Just heard that the other Robertson's will walk if Phil isn't put back. It's not like they need the money. Apparently each of the main characters get $200,000 an episode.

If A&E makes enough money from the show to pay them that, would they have the guts to pull the plug on the show?

Kind of a game of Social Conservative Chicken.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Boges

[guyser]

From what I have read, at this point, I'm going to have to side with Shady and say that there's nothing wrong with Phil expressing his opinion.

Except Shady didnt frame his argument that way.

He framed it on free speech issues, same as Palin, ergo both are SSoS.

It isnt a free speech issue, but that isnt what some want to frame it as. Quite funny to see them flail about

[Michael Hardner]

Kind of a game of Social Conservative Chicken.

Not really. It's actually game theory. You could draw it out on a network diagram, create flows between the states, assign percentage likelihood, then optimize for revenue.

[sharkman]

Robertson is free to express his opinion that homosexuality was wrong and that blacks were better off without full civil rights. Nobody is stopping Phil from speaking or attempting to lock him up for saying those words. Dozens of news outlets will publish or air anything he says. He can go online and blog about his views and millions of people will share and spread his words.

However, A&E is not required to provide Phil with the platform to deliver messages the company disagrees with. I think the christian right, anti free speech claims, are really just a straw man setup to avoid having to discuss the validity of the ugly things Robertson said.

Could you please quote specifically where Robertson said blacks were better off without full civil rights? Pre-entitlement/pre-welfare does not mean 'full civll rights', you're just generalizing and making assumptions unless he mentioned something else in the interview.

Edited December 20, 2013 by sharkman

[BubberMiley]

Could you please quote specifically where Robertson said blacks were better off without full civil rights?

And Rob Ford didn't specifically say the Star reporter was a pedophile either.

[TimG]

Like many of the extreme right, Palin confuses 'freedom of speech' with freedom from the consequences of offending others. No such luck: People who disagree and are offended are also free to speak their mind. And that just might include your employer!

The problem here is with people who confuse organized campaigns to suppress the speech of others and freedom of conscious. Such campaigns ARE a denial of free speech. If people, as individuals, simply choose to stop watching the show then they would be exercising their freedom of conscious - but as soon as someone gets up in the media and starts exhorting others to boycott a show they are actively suppressing the speech of others and that is wrong. Edited December 20, 2013 by TimG

[guyser]

The problem here is with people who confuse organized campaigns to suppress the speech of others and freedom of conscious. Such campaigns ARE a denial of free speech. If people, as individuals, simply choose to stop watching the show then they would be exercising their freedom of conscious - but as soon as someone gets up in the media and starts exhorting others to boycott a show they are actively suppressing the speech of others and that is wrong.

No, not at all

Freedom of speech pertains to the Govt suppressing speech.

[jacee]

The problem here is with people who confuse organized campaigns to suppress the speech of others and freedom of conscious. Such campaigns ARE a denial of free speech. If people, as individuals, simply choose to stop watching the show then they would be exercising their freedom of conscious - but as soon as someone gets up in the media and starts exhorting others to boycott a show they are actively suppressing the speech of others and that is wrong.

Horse apples.

We all have freedom of conscience to believe he's wrong, freedom of speech to disagree, and freedom of association to organize whatever campaigns/boycotts etc. we choose.

And he is free to keep talking and being a bigot too. He might get a lot of negative feedback, and it might affect his livelihood ... but that's his choice to take that risk.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH DOES NOT MEAN FREEDOM FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT SPEECH!

[TimG]

We all have freedom of conscience to believe he's wrong, freedom of speech to disagree, and freedom of association to organize whatever campaigns/boycotts etc. we choose.

Ah - no. Organizing boycotts is no different from lobbying politicians to pass a law.

If people make the choice watch other shows - fine. If people want to stand up and repudiate what was said - fine. But as soon as there is any "campaign" then free speech is being denied and the right to free speech trumps someone's else's right to organize a boycott.

Free speech means people are free to express ideas - anyone who tries to impose "consequences" on people for expressing ideas are suppressing free speech. They are NOT simply exercising their own. This is a variation on "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" argument.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH DOES NOT MEAN FREEDOM FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT SPEECH!

Many on the left are totalitarians at heart - they don't like when people say things that they disagree with and they would like to see such speech suppressed by force and would use the law if they could but they can't - so they instead try to simply bully people into shutting up.

BULLYING PEOPLE INTO SILENCE IS NOT FREE SPEECH.

Edited December 20, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

Ah - no. Organizing boycotts is no different from lobbying politicians to pass a law to use.

All legal.

If people make the choice watch other shows - fine. If people want to stand up and repudiate what was said - fine. But as soon as there is any "campaign" then free speech is being denied the right to free speech trumps someone's else's right to

No one's free speech is being denied. He can 'organize a campaign' to respond if he wishes.

We all have free speech. No one's free speech takes precedence over others.

No - it not that at law. Many on the left are totalitarians at heart - they don't like when people say things that they disagree with and they would like to see such speech suppressed by force and would use the law if they could but the can't - so they instead try to simply bully people into shutting up.

BULLYING IS NOT FREE SPEECH.

He chooses freely to make bigoted comments.

Others choose freely to respond.

That's life!

Free speech means people are free to express ideas - anyone who tries to impose "consequences" on people for expressing ideas are suppressing free speech.

That's ridiculous. There is no such law.

They are NOT simply exercising their own.

Yes we are.

Edited December 20, 2013 by jacee

[Boges]

A&E is shooting itself in the foot if it sticks to its guns here.

Gotta think this is a publicity stunt.

[TimG]

No one's free speech is being denied. He can 'organize a campaign' to respond if he wishes. We all have free speech. No one's free speech takes precedence over others.

It does if the objective of the free speech is to bully other people into silence (i.e. deny others the right to express their POV).

Are you really arguing that people have a constitutional right to be be bullies?

Does that mean you reject the cyber bulling laws? You cannot rationally support laws against cyberbullying if you think that people have a right to bully.

Edited December 20, 2013 by TimG

[BubberMiley]

Many on the left are totalitarians at heart - they don't like when people say things that they disagree with and they would like to see such speech suppressed by force and would use the law if they could but they can't - so they instead try to simply bully people into shutting up.

BULLYING PEOPLE INTO SILENCE IS NOT FREE SPEECH.

You mean like all those people on the left that the Dixie Chicks had to deal with?

BTW, where were you then?

[jacee]

A&E is shooting itself in the foot if it sticks to its guns here.

Maybe they're just standing up for their black and gay employees. If they don't say something, they risk a poisoned work environment.

Gotta think this is a publicity stunt.

I doubt that.

[Mighty AC]

If people make the choice watch other shows - fine. If people want to stand up and repudiate what was said - fine. But as soon as there is any "campaign" then free speech is being denied and the right to free speech trumps someone's else's right to organize a boycott.

There are groups organizing support to get Phil back on the air and others to keep Phil off their air. How does organizing a campaign to spread the word infringe on free speech? Each person is still making an individual choice to support or ignore a campaign. Nobody is being denied the right to voice an opinion.

[jacee]

It does if the objective of the free speech is to bully other people into silence (i.e. deny others the right to express their POV).

Are you really arguing that people have a constitutional right to be be bullies?

Does that mean you reject the cyber bulling laws? You cannot rationally support laws against cyberbullying if you think that people have a right to bully.

Disagreeing is "bullying"???

[TimG]

You mean like all those people on the left that the Dixie Chicks had to deal with?

That was wrong too.

However, one exception does not change my opinion that many on the left hate hearing opinions they disagree with and seek to suppress it using whatever tools they have.

Edited December 20, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

How does organizing a campaign to spread the word infringe on free speech?

How does organizing a lynch mob infringe on the right to due process?

There is a clear line: if you stand up and repudiate someone's ideas with your own ideas then you are using your free speech. If you don't bother to repudiate those ideas and simply seek to use the power of a mob to bully someone into silence then you are suppressing free speech.

[waldo]

Gotta think this is a publicity stunt.

bingo! Whatever sells... this pic of "the ducksters" says it all.

[Boges]

Maybe they're just standing up for their black and gay employees. If they don't say something, they risk a poisoned work environment.

They also stand to lose the show altogether. It's certainly a money-maker.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/19/showbiz/duck-dynasty-suspension/

The family called into question the future of the show.

"We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right. We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty," it said.

I doubt that.

Yeah because reality shows never orchestrate controversies to increase publicity.

[BubberMiley]

However, one exception does not change my statement that man on the left hate hearing opinions they disagree with and seek to suppress using whatever tools they have.

Okay. How many "exceptions" do you need? The American Family Association recently called for a boycott of businesses that say "Happy Holidays" in their ads rather than "Merry Christmas."

I can go on.

The reality is both sides do it. It's part of free speech to use your power as a consumer to express your opinion. It's ironic that people would try to suppress that by claiming it's against free speech.