A&E Taking Heat For Suspending 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson
- Thread starter Shilliam Watner
- Start date
Who is that Gorgeous man in your Avatar?
Who is being silenced? Robertson is free to say whatever he wants to, A&E is under no obligation to keep paying him for what he says.
Who is silencing him? No one. He has no Constitutional Right to be on TV to say whatever he wants nor does he likely have a contractual right with A&E to say whatever he wants with no repercussions.
He can say whatever he wants, he can *still* say whatever he wants! People also can retaliate against him, or support him, how they see fit.
He has the right to say the racist and bigoted things he said.
I also have the right to say he's a closed-minded, red-neck, Bible-thumping hick still living in the middle of last century.
Last edited:
THIS.
I must say, the argument for a 'pick & choose' option for cable and satelite broadcasting vs. the current 'a la carte' option is long overdue (being considerd by the Canadian government, so I've heard), and this show being on the air from this now crappy channel is a great confirmer of it. A&E had it's glory days, but like many specialty TV channels (and two radio stations where I live) that have suffered mission creep, it's time for it to go if this is the only kind of show that the channel can put on the air. Either that, or they can iniatiate the pick and choose model for cable and allow people a choice in watching TV channels that aren't full of crap shows like Duck Dynasty.
That was in response to Green Shirt, but your response popped up.
I'm not arguing that. Hell, at this point, I'm not sure what I'm trying to say (I've written and erased a response several times now).
Here's what I believe: Phil is wrong and I disagree with his comments on the subject of homosexuality. I detest the idea of his show, as I feel it panders to a demographic that revels in their lack of intelligence.
The rest is just excess that comes from a topic that we've discussed to death.
There's still PBS.
A
Amaris
Guest
Oh, there's still intelligent programming, but look where it has to come from: public television continues to hold the standard, while channels that tout "learning," and "discovery," in their titles continue to play to the most common denominator because that's where they can cash in without any effort.
So while I agree, it's still a shame that other channels can't do it because they might make slightly less obscene profit.
Do stupid people want smart programming?
When A&E considered it unprofitable to air Jeremy Brett's Adventures of Sherlock Holmes it was a sad day for American cable television. There was a strong basic cable audience for classic Conan Doyle just a little over a decade ago, and now you can't get some channels to air anything that doesn't involve a trailer, a swamp or somebody chugging beer and chewing Red Man (often all three rolled into one show, sometimes on the same night). I'm guilty of watching a few dumb shows for the pure lulz and entertainment value and I won't even begin to pretend I have a sterling record on this matter, but to watch channels like A&E, Learning and History decline so precipitously in just a short period of time speaks volumes about the kind of people that the advertisers are pandering to at the moment, and it's not the Star Trek/Ken Burns/classic literature crowds.
I have every cable channel that our local cable company offers and it is nothing but a wasteland out there 99.9% of the time. I find myself watching repeats of COPS more than anything else on TV (I like watching people get tazered, so shoot me).
There is something about the 500-channel universe that makes pretty much everything less special.
Without Cops, there would be no Reno 911.
There would also be no Troops, and the only enjoyable 30 seconds in the whole of Bad Boys when Martin Laurence started singing the theme to Cops, would have no point of reference.
There would also be no Troops, and the only enjoyable 30 seconds in the whole of Bad Boys when Martin Laurence started singing the theme to Cops, would have no point of reference.
Yeah, I don't recall anyone on FOX decrying Martin Bashir's firing after he said someone should shit in Palin's mouth.
Hell, if Palin had come out in defense of Bashir, that would've been remarkable. (Heaven forbid she do something remarkable...)
Well, I call into play again the hooplah over The Dixie Chicks and all of the flack/boycotting they got after criticizing George Bush. It seemed like the Conservative Media was all over tearing them down and ending their careers which they pretty much did. The Chicks never really fully recovered. Boycotts of their CDs, mass burnings/disposals of their CDs, radio stations not playing their songs all because they used their First Amendment Rights.
Hell, Ted Nugent at a concert very vocally advocated for (or spoke in favor of) killing Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (saying they should suck on his machine guns.) He was lauded by Fox News and Conservative Media for speaking out in such a way.
Which in both cases is all "fine" (though Nugent's comments went very, very extreme) and part of the "freedom of speech" and the reaction it can have on people's lives.
The case with Phil Robertson is, again, the people reacting to extreme comments. It just so happens this reaction isn't one Fox News and the Conservative Media/Elite agree with. So it's now a "Freedom of Speech" issue.
As was said, it's only a 1A issue when it effects something they agree with. The Dixie Chicks speak out against the president (pretty much the very *idea* behind the First Amendment) well it's time to teach them a lesson and boycott them into oblivion!
A man says some pretty bigoted, racist and fairly Biblically ignorant stuff and as a reaction his employer suspends him? Well, dammit, his Freedom of Speech is being violated!
Complete and total horseshit.
Hell, Ted Nugent at a concert very vocally advocated for (or spoke in favor of) killing Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (saying they should suck on his machine guns.) He was lauded by Fox News and Conservative Media for speaking out in such a way.
Which in both cases is all "fine" (though Nugent's comments went very, very extreme) and part of the "freedom of speech" and the reaction it can have on people's lives.
The case with Phil Robertson is, again, the people reacting to extreme comments. It just so happens this reaction isn't one Fox News and the Conservative Media/Elite agree with. So it's now a "Freedom of Speech" issue.
As was said, it's only a 1A issue when it effects something they agree with. The Dixie Chicks speak out against the president (pretty much the very *idea* behind the First Amendment) well it's time to teach them a lesson and boycott them into oblivion!
A man says some pretty bigoted, racist and fairly Biblically ignorant stuff and as a reaction his employer suspends him? Well, dammit, his Freedom of Speech is being violated!
Complete and total horseshit.
I'll just leave this here: A&E lifts Phil Robertson’s "Duck Dynasty" suspension.
1 week suspended per sexual orientation ostracised?
Seems, fair.
Seems, fair.
Is this another plea for tolerance for the intolerant? Because that's not now, nor has it ever been, a clever argument.
The debate here doesn't involve members of one group who support topic X and members of another group who support topic -X. This is between one group that says, "People are free to believe whatever they want, but individuals should have the right to be with whomever they want (provided for consent, yadda yadda, yadda)" and another group that says, "Only certain relationships should be allowed, and we should legislate that, and dole out moral reprobations."
Beyond that, the stigmatization and ostracization of gays has caused very real physical and mental harm, and allowing it to continue in such a manner will contribute to more pain, and violence, and death. The opposing side cannot make an equivalent argument. That is to say, allowing these statements causes very real harm. That harm may not be seen as swiftly as when one yells, "FIRE," in a crowded theater, but the harm exists all the same. There is precedent against shouting, "FIRE," I see no reason to complain about pointing to the dangers in this situation as well.
A
Amaris
Guest
Yep. Just a ratings ploy and nothing more. All this means is that there is nothing on A&E I wish to watch, and if I could remove it from my channel lineup, I would.