Creamy, nougaty, Freedomy Freedom ® is more important than some silly, overblown prejudice, you know. A&E are such tyrants for squelching Phil's liberties. When will the freedom fighters stand up?
Last edited:
A&E Taking Heat For Suspending 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson
- Thread starter Shilliam Watner
- Start date
You know, and here's the thing. If his First Amendment rights were really being infringed I'd be right there along with people fighting for him. Hell, the Phelps Clan is an abomination to everything and I personally disagree with the SCOTUS' decision to restrict their protests near funerals and other venues.
But Robertson's First Amendment rights were not infringed on. Not even touched. It's already been said plenty of times but it cannot be said enough:
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is about *government* controlling you or stopping you from doing things. Government is not involved here. Not in the least. All that's happened is one private entity has punished another for saying things that may make the former look bad. This perfectly legal and Constitutionally not even on the RADAR. Hell it's probably double-downed on since I'm sure there's a clause in a television show contract somewhere that says something like "you will not say things that makes us look bad."
If you come into my home I've every right to tell you not to say things. If you *do* say them I have every right to kick you out of my house. If you don't leave I can call the police and have you removed for trespassing. You won't get to stay by telling the cop I was "infringing on your First Amendment rights." Because I wasn't.
If you're my employee I can fire you for saying something that might make me look bad.
This is not a First Amendment issue. Again, if it genuinely were I'd be fighting with everyone else.
But it's not. It's one ignorant man who said something ignorant and as a result his employers, those who're paying him to be on a TV show, suspended him for possibly making them look bad. Two private entities. Constitution does not apply.
But Robertson's First Amendment rights were not infringed on. Not even touched. It's already been said plenty of times but it cannot be said enough:
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is about *government* controlling you or stopping you from doing things. Government is not involved here. Not in the least. All that's happened is one private entity has punished another for saying things that may make the former look bad. This perfectly legal and Constitutionally not even on the RADAR. Hell it's probably double-downed on since I'm sure there's a clause in a television show contract somewhere that says something like "you will not say things that makes us look bad."
If you come into my home I've every right to tell you not to say things. If you *do* say them I have every right to kick you out of my house. If you don't leave I can call the police and have you removed for trespassing. You won't get to stay by telling the cop I was "infringing on your First Amendment rights." Because I wasn't.
If you're my employee I can fire you for saying something that might make me look bad.
This is not a First Amendment issue. Again, if it genuinely were I'd be fighting with everyone else.
But it's not. It's one ignorant man who said something ignorant and as a result his employers, those who're paying him to be on a TV show, suspended him for possibly making them look bad. Two private entities. Constitution does not apply.
This from a Congressional candidate in a Republican primary here in Illinois:
Because, sure, when we're discussing the waning days of the oppression of a minority by the group that's always had the power in this country, the bigots are Rosa Parks, and the group that historically has been persecuted are the racist white southerners. Um, yeah.
Funny, because a few weeks ago the GOP tweeted that Rosa Parks ended racism. So yeah.. they seem in touch with reality.
And Trekker, ever been to the south? My cousin moved there for a few years and dated a black man. They treated her like she was a traitor. And this was in 2009 I think.
Again, A & E knew exactly what was going to happen and played to both sides...
The channel of classy dramas and documentary programming sure has fallen a long ways since it was the go-to cable network for smart, interesting and informative entertainment. Now it's just E! or The Learning Channel with better carpeting.
A
Amaris
Guest
Agreed. Aside from the Science channel (which still caters to the lower end every so often), I don't know of any learning channel that is worth watching.
I still have a few shows on History that I enjoy, but that channel has just nosedived in recent years. No matter what one thinks about Pawn Stars and American Pickers, they both deal with many interesting, historic items and antiques from across the spectrum of both American and wider world history and you see amazing knicknacks and artifacts on those programs along with some fun things you might have seen or had when you yourself were a kid. So, technically: history.
But gator hunters? Alaskan truckers? Swamp men? Rednecks with Phil-like beards who hunt and interact Crocodile Dundee-style with hoity-toity outsiders (minus the quirky charm and being funny)? I'd rather see a week's worth of nonstop Ancient Aliens episodes about Nazi time travelers inventing the wheel with alien technology because at least Ancient Aliens Guy will talk about ancient ruins and civilizations and you might learn something about an old empire or society, even if it's couched in some hilarious malarkey about Julius Caesar being a human-alien hybrid with a cybernetic toga.
But gator hunters? Alaskan truckers? Swamp men? Rednecks with Phil-like beards who hunt and interact Crocodile Dundee-style with hoity-toity outsiders (minus the quirky charm and being funny)? I'd rather see a week's worth of nonstop Ancient Aliens episodes about Nazi time travelers inventing the wheel with alien technology because at least Ancient Aliens Guy will talk about ancient ruins and civilizations and you might learn something about an old empire or society, even if it's couched in some hilarious malarkey about Julius Caesar being a human-alien hybrid with a cybernetic toga.
If you look at History Channel's On Demand section, the only shows that are actually about history are listed under "Specials." That tells you a lot.
As for A&E, I am disappointed and repulsed. And as for the whole situation, it just goes to show how far we still have to go before America becomes what we set out to be. The Revolution has not ended and we have to keep fighting-- not with muskets anymore, but by speaking out and setting the right example and standing up for what's right whenever it's called for.
As for A&E, I am disappointed and repulsed. And as for the whole situation, it just goes to show how far we still have to go before America becomes what we set out to be. The Revolution has not ended and we have to keep fighting-- not with muskets anymore, but by speaking out and setting the right example and standing up for what's right whenever it's called for.
You'd think if these people were really so connected to nature they'd know that homosexual activity is rampant in the animal kingdom.
Actually, it sounds like the Right has been played again. They dance to the outrage machine.
Animals rape each other.
A boy animal wants to ####, he goes out and rapes someone.
Cats have hooks on the end of their penises so that the girls can't run away during the rape.
(Wait, why about big cats like Lions? Do they have a cock that looks like a grappling hook?)
Boy human beings on the other hand respect women when they say they have a head ache, or they have to wash their hair.
But that has nothing to do with homosexuality.
Of course not.
But if you can't ask someone if they want to be your lover politely, and you have to rape them, becuase no one you know has invented language, it's safer to pick someone smaller and weaker than you are.
Rapists are creatures of opportunity, not attraction.
The smaller animals will always be raped by the larger male animals, and the smaller animals are probably not always female.
I worked for a major corporation and I had to sign a paper saying that I represented the company at ALL times and could be fired if I made the company look bad. My sister and a really close friend of mine work in television (behind the scenes, editor, camera operator) and they did say that the on screen talent had the same type of clause in their contract and it is strictly enforced.
Pawn Stars and American Pickers do provide a unique glimpse into history through the items the buy/find. Otherwise I'm going to say something I never thought I'd say: I liked the History Channel a lot better when it was the Hitler Channel.
My sister did tell me one thing, when these channels started slipping in ratings, a new executive brought these reality shows to them and rating rose, she jumped from network to network making these changes from the channel's original content to "redneck" programming."
I wonder how many people support free speech of only those whose beliefs they share. 
To quote the great James T. Kirk, "These words apply to everyone, or they mean nothing."
To quote the great James T. Kirk, "These words apply to everyone, or they mean nothing."
Well, in this particular situation it's not a free speech issue. Had the government attempted to crack down on and silence a guy like Phil Robertson for his comments it would be patently wrong, no matter what Phil said. But this is a privately owned, for-profit cable television network that has a completely voluntary business arrangement with Robertson and the other Duck Dynasty members, and if they feel that his anti-gay comments and the things he said about black Americans during Jim Crow are damaging to their revenue stream and reputation then they have every right to suspend or fire him.
That said, A&E has been whoring reruns of the show on a consistent basis since the controversy broke, so they don't really seem as if they themselves are as concerned with the impact of Phil's comments as they originally appeared. They'll milk the series for everything it's worth and one of the cast members would probably have to bludgeon somebody with a blunt object to get the show actually yanked from the network's schedule.
That said, A&E has been whoring reruns of the show on a consistent basis since the controversy broke, so they don't really seem as if they themselves are as concerned with the impact of Phil's comments as they originally appeared. They'll milk the series for everything it's worth and one of the cast members would probably have to bludgeon somebody with a blunt object to get the show actually yanked from the network's schedule.
World At War reruns on the Military Channel is about all I can come up with.
I was just saying what I did because I have noticed that many people who are the most adamant about free speech support it when only when the speaker agrees with them.
Just food for thought.
Although for A&E's treachery and insincerity, can someone get them for false advertising?
That was exactly my point. That is what makes it so ironic. Those who are two faced (no matter what they believe) want to have their say, but scream bloody murder when someone has the gaul to disagree with them. Just my 2 cents on my 54 years of observation of human interaction.