'Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson Suspended From Show

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, but it's not a 1st Amendment issue. You got that part, too. Right? So everything you said in your previous post was complete nonsense, right?
 

Will E Worm

Conspiracy...
My bad. Since hillbilly or redneck isn't politically correct then how's this:

NASCAR Americans.

I did not call him dumb. Ignorant and dumb aren't the same thing.

Publicity stunt.

Yes, but it's not a 1st Amendment issue. You got that part, too. Right? So everything you said in your previous post was complete nonsense, right?



:facepalm:


:drama:
 
So you can't answer the question about 1st Amendment issues on this topic, then?

I figured. You're not quite smart enough to engage in debate on that level.
 
He has the right to say what he wants. I agree, this is a first amendment issue.

Uh, no Will. That's not how the First Amendment works, and that's not ever how it worked. The US Constitution is a contract between the government and the people it governs over. It's put in place to establish limitations on the laws that can be passed. Thus congress can't pass a law that says, for instance, that you can't speak negatively about any particular minority group. The Constitution, however, has no application to interactions between private individuals nor corporations.

Really, on a lot of levels everyone knows this. Everyone knows that you can't waltz into your boss' office and call him a moron and expect to remain employed. Everyone knows you, as a guest, can't start throwing slurs at your host and expect to not be kicked out of their home. People just tend to get confused when it involves very public companies and their decisions involving controversial subjects.

Really, I'm not even sure the government could pass a law that would prevent people from being fired over stuff like this. After all, is the company not expressing their own viewpoint by firing their employee? Like it or not, it's a public statement meant to show that they don't endorse what that person has put forward. And, agree or not, Robertson is a public figure doing an interview about his show for the network... he was a face for that network, and thus has a responsibility to reflect their values, and behave accordingly when functioning in a such a manner. What he says, ultimately, can have an impact on their business. He has a duty to them, and if he fails in that duty, just like if he fails in any other duty to them, they have a right to fire him.

Suck at your job? Get shit canned. If you're a public figure and you create a controversial media firestorm then, hey, you suck at your job. Welcome to unemployment, enjoy your stay.
 
Uh, no Will. That's not how the First Amendment works, and that's not ever how it worked. The US Constitution is a contract between the government and the people it governs over. It's put in place to establish limitations on the laws that can be passed. Thus congress can't pass a law that says, for instance, that you can't speak negatively about any particular minority group. The Constitution, however, has no application to interactions between private individuals nor corporations.

Really, on a lot of levels everyone knows this. Everyone knows that you can't waltz into your boss' office and call him a moron and expect to remain employed. Everyone knows you, as a guest, can't start throwing slurs at your host and expect to not be kicked out of their home. People just tend to get confused when it involves very public companies and their decisions involving controversial subjects.

Really, I'm not even sure the government could pass a law that would prevent people from being fired over stuff like this. After all, is the company not expressing their own viewpoint by firing their employee? Like it or not, it's a public statement meant to show that they don't endorse what that person has put forward. And, agree or not, Robertson is a public figure doing an interview about his show for the network... he was a face for that network, and thus has a responsibility to reflect their values, and behave accordingly when functioning in a such a manner. What he says, ultimately, can have an impact on their business. He has a duty to them, and if he fails in that duty, just like if he fails in any other duty to them, they have a right to fire him.

Suck at your job? Get shit canned. If you're a public figure and you create a controversial media firestorm then, hey, you suck at your job. Welcome to unemployment, enjoy your stay.

Please don't point facts and reason out to Will. He will only call you a troll and tell you you're wrong.
 

Mayhem

Banned
Ian Bayne, GOP Congressional Candidate: 'Duck Dynasty Star Is Rosa Parks Of Our Generation'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/20/ian-bayne-duck-dynasty_n_4480745.html?ref=topbar

Embattled "Duck Dynasty" star Phil Robertson has been suspended from his show by A&E for his remarks about gays and African-Americans, and now some high-profile conservatives are rallying to his side and defending him. On Friday, GOP congressional candidate Ian Bayne went all in, comparing Robertson to civil rights icon Rosa Parks.

"In December 1955, Rosa Parks took a stand against an unjust societal persecution of black people, and in December 2013, Robertson took a stand against persecution of Christians," Bayne said in an email to supporters.

"What Parks did was courageous," he added. "What Mr. Robertson did was courageous too."

Robertson's anti-gay remarks in an interview with GQ comparing homosexuality to bestiality have received quite a bit of attention. But he also commented on the state of African-Americans during the Jim Crow era, claiming that they were all carefree and totally happy with their (unequal) status:

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.

Bayne is essentially praising Robertson for whitewashing the struggles that Parks fought so hard to eradicate. And Robertson's comments do not at all reflect what was actually happening with African Americans in pre-civil rights Louisiana, as the Atlantic's Ta-Neihisi Coates points out:

That is because governance in Phil Robertson's Louisiana was premised on terrorism. As late as 1890, the majority of people in Louisiana were black. As late as 1902, they still lived under threat of slavery through debt peonage and the convict-lease system. Virtually all of them were pilfered of their vote and their tax dollars. Plunder and second slavery were enforced by violence, as when the besiegers of Colfax massacred 50 black freedmen with rifles and cannon and tossed their bodies into a river. Even today the Colfax Massacre is honored in Louisiana as the rightful "end of carpetbag misrule."
The black people who Phil Robertson knew were warred upon. If they valued their lives, and the lives of their families, the last thing they would have done was voiced a complaint about "white people" to a man like Robertson. Ignorance is no great sin and one can forgive the good-natured white person for not knowing how all that cannibal sausage was truly made. But having been presented with a set of facts, Robertson's response is to cite "welfare" and "entitlement" as the true culprits.


Bayne, a conservative talk radio host, is one of four Republicans in a competitive primary vying to challenge Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.) in 2014.

"Duck Dynasty" will continue on A&E, but the network suspended Robertson indefinitely. Since then, conservatives like fellow reality TV star Sarah Palin and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) have defended Robertson.
 
although I don't agree with everything he said I have no problem with him saying it. he wasn't outrightly nasty or derogatory or vicious with what he said, he stated his personal opinion. that being said I give a shit if they suspend him or if they do away with the TV show. I don't see the big uproar
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
It totally baffles me that anyone would assert that this is a first-amendment issue. Of course Mr. Roberston can say anything he wishes. Some may agree with him and some will undoubtedly disagree. They can state their opinion as well. However, if Mr. Robertson's employer feels that his remarks reflect negatively upon the best interests of their enterprise, they can choose to to anything they wish with him as an employee or subcontractor, including termination of services. Mr. Robertson can continue to say whatever he wishes regardless of the actions of his employer. Therefore, there is no infringement of his first-amendment rights in any fashion. Freedom of expression does not imply a guarantee of employment as a concurrent right.
 
A&E knew what they were getting when they signed these guys. They're really religious folks and so it was just a matter of time before this issue came up. They already wrapped up filming for the next season so he'll be back in a couple of weeks once this dies down. It's just A&E doing damage control and that's about it.
 
A&E made a huge blunder. They will pay for this. People are already boycotting their advertisers and have blocked the station on their cable.

He has the right to say what he wants. I agree, this is a first amendment issue.

Oh, so then you agree that Martin Bashir's 1st Amendment rights were violated when he was suspended and later forced to resign for making those comments about Sarah Palin? If it's free speech for Robertson, shouldn't it be free speech for Bashir as well?......I smell hypocrisy
 
Oh, so then you agree that Martin Bashir's 1st Amendment rights were violated when he was suspended and later forced to resign for making those comments about Sarah Palin? If it's free speech for Robertson, shouldn't it be free speech for Bashir as well?......I smell hypocrisy

Are you seriously going to compare Phil's comments to Martin Bashir saying someone should defecate in Sarah Palin's mouth???? Really????? The two are no where near in the same atmosphere. Martin Bashir's statements were full of hate and vitriol. Phil's comments had no hate in them whatsover. All he did was list a series of sins. Get a grip.
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Free speech is free speech, what's good for Phil Robertson is good for Martin Bashir, if you support one and not the other you don't truly support "free speech". Neither case is a First Amendment issue, anyway, neither of them were locked up for what they said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top