There is a difference between saying "I personally don't like gay people" and saying "OH MY GERD, THEM GAYS WILL TURN US ALL INTO NAZICOMMUISLAMISTS! THIS IS 'MERICA!" though, also isn't there a law against hate speech in the US (I know there is one in Norway at least)? Because this seems pretty hate speech-y to me at least.
In the United States, the 1st amendment to the constitution guarantees the right to free speech. Any law prohibiting "Hate Speech" would likely be found unconstitutional if it were tested. The quotes that I have seen from this interview look to me like he was honestly answering questions asked by the interviewer. I would actually rather he did not hide his feelings. Either that tells us who not to associate with because of his beliefs, or it tells us who needs education to see our points, and what arguments we should be making. Political correctness is bad, because it causes everyone to self-censor, and the truth no longer gets to see the light of day. I don't personally like his show, and even if I did, I would probably choose not to watch it after this interview anyway. I do however believe he has a right to express his views just like we do.
That's not how free speech works. Free speech means that you are allowed to say whatever you want to say without feeling like you are going to be killed or thrown in jail. That's pretty much as far as it goes. A private company did just that. They decided to no longer keep associating their brand with him.
I agree that this cast member has the right to state his opinion just as much as I have a right not to watch their show. I do think he could of said it in a more civil way and not in a disgusting manner. It's freedom of speech.
That isn't what freedom of speech legally means in America. Freedom of speech in the US means that (with a few exceptions) you can say what you want without punishment or censorship from the government. There may be more protections depending on jurisdiction but it does not necessarily protect you from other consequences. He exercised his right of free speech by sharing his opinion. However, A&E also has the right to their opinion and they've decided to suspend him based on that opinion. His participation on the show was a privilege that A&E can revoke and not a right. A&E is a business. Their goal is to make money. They shouldn't be forced to keep someone that could cause them to lose money by saying homosexuality is in the same area as bestiality. It just isn't good for business. TL;DR: Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you are protected from all consequences. EDIT: TheEdend beat me to it but I agree
Sarah Palin defends anti-gay reality star Phil Robertson by slamming those ‘intolerants hatin Now he's really in trouble:roflmao:
Yeah remember when she backed McCain I'm not a republican but i feel sorry for him every time i see her face .
Echoing Castle Walls's words here. The right to Freedom of Speech only applies to the governments ability to restrict his speech, not private individuals or businesses. This is how we maintain a civil society, we ensure that everyone has the RIGHT to be heard (meaning the government can't punish you), but if you say something that upsets a lot of people there can be consequences to your actions. A&E is a private business, and they have the right to decide to no longer associate with someone they feel will hurt their business due to the offensive things they've said. Just as EC is privately run and is able to set down it's own rules for conduct here, one of which would involve banning people who say really offensive things. Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It's just that it's the public as a whole that sets those consequences (through freedom of association) and not the government.
I love how Christians\Conservatives always scream and cry about "freedom of speech" when it comes to this sort of stuff. Nobody is infringing on anyones right to freedom of speech here. The government is not preventing anyone from expressing their beliefs, nor is any law. Just as people have the right to say whatever they want, companies have the right to suspend anyone they want if they make inappropriate comments like this guy did. It reminds me of the whole chic fil a thing, all of the right-wingers lined up to support their "freedom of speech" when the CEO sparked outrage with his comments - hell, i'm pretty sure Rick Santorum and other politicians even called for a "chic fil a appreciation day", yet when Oreo came out for gay marriage the same people cried and screamed about Oreo getting involved in politics and called for boycotts. Why wern't they lining up at grocery stores to support Oreos freedom of speech when they they got backlash? It's never really about freedom of speech to these people, but who they agree with politically.
One of my Scouting friends on FB posted this. Loved it. xD To all of my friends who have been posting about how A&E's decision to suspend Phil Robertson from the show Duck Dynasty (due to homophobic comments made in an interview in GQ magazine) is "an attack on the First Amendment." You are absolutely right. No private organization should be allowed to exclude someone based on who they are or the views they hold. Remember Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)? The Supreme Court ruling that allowed the BSA to prohibit openly gay scouts and leaders from joining or participating in their organization due to their First Amendment right to "freedom of association?" By this ruling (made by a conservative court), A&E was exercising their First Amendment right to "freedom of association," as they do not feel that the views expressed by Mr. Robertson reflect the values of their network. So please, continue to protest against A&E's right to "freedom of association." If you do take it to the Supreme Court and win, then BSA v. Dale will be overridden, and the BSA will be forced to completely end their discriminatory policies against gay leaders. Best of luck to you!
If I've learned anything recently, it's that love is love because a human being is a human being, and that sex is sex because a hole is a hole... and also that I now have an ideological reason to dislike Duck Dynasty. Never liked it to begin with anyway.
His comments are obviously quite laughable, but A&E should not have suspended him. It seems to be a pattern in America - and this just isn't gays - where people get offended by what someone has to say and the only way they'll feel better is if that person just goes away (see the butter queen from Georgia, Paula Deen). If we're headed down a road where everything said is politically correct and we never get offended by anything someone says, this country is in trouble. People have a right to their own opinion and free speech, even if it's hilariously ridiculous. I mean, I would love it if Sarah Palin didn't exist so that I didn't have to listen or read her nonsensical opinions. But ignoring and/or laughing at her has been a pretty effective strategy for me. I personally couldn't care less what some hillbilly anti-intellectual thinks, and certainly won't be losing sleep because of his comments. And I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with Sarah Palin on something. Ugh.
A&E also have the right to decide who they want to associate with. If they don't want to be involved with a public figure like this after they've spouted certain views then that's their call.
They do. But this definitely seems like a PR move. They're afraid of losing viewers because of this hick's comments, which is a reflection of the level of political correctness in this country.
I agree. I have a conservative page liked on facebook and they posted a picture about him getting fired or suspended or whatever and someone commented on it, saying "Liberals really need to learn to be more tolerant of others." That pissed me off because a bunch of so-called Christians were commenting on it, saying about how their freedom of speech is getting attacked and that guy says that. A lot of people SAY they're Christian, but they don't act like it at all because a lot of them say hateful stuff about everyone and anyone that they don't agree with. And then this guy has the audacity to say that another group needs to be more tolerant of others. I never hear liberals complaining about how gay people are making this country fall apart with their evil, sinful ways. But it's okay for Christians to say it because it's just their "beliefs." I don't care about people voicing their opinions. What I care about is when their opinions are hateful, purposely hurt others, and inhibits others' rights. Because a lot of Christians say that they should be allowed to say whatever they want because it's just their opinion and beliefs, but a lot of them try to use those "beliefs" to shove gay people down and keep their rights away from them. That's the problem that I have with those so-called Christians voicing their opinions. That, and the fact that they preach how Jesus loves everyone and how people should be nice and loving to one another, but then in the same breath say that Jesus doesn't love "these people" and they're just evil and going to hell. How is that acting "Christian"? It's not.
He was asked what he thought was a sin. He could have easily answered it honestly without basically saying "Gay = bestiality and terrorism". Like what?
I found this article incredibly hilarious. Sarah Palin and others protest the revoking of Duck Dynasty star's First Amendment rights to be on a TV show · The A.V. Club
I believe that taking him off the show wasn't exactly the right move, but that was up to his employer. What I do believe is that if he is stating his opinion denouncing an entire group of people within the population, he is being offensive, and guess what? I am allowed to be offended by that. What would you expect, honestly, for being disrespectful to an entire group of people? Did he think that the group would just accept that blatant disrespect for just being who they are (and not even by choice)? He has a right to speak his opinion, but he should expect consequences when he says things that are just disrespectful and this includes what he said, and I do not pity him for that. (plus he probably had a section within his contract that specifically laid out some kind of decency policy, so he might have violated that part).
Any chance they will put him back on? Just wondering what with the boycott pages up to one million likes. That's a fair amount. Do we need to support A&E somewhere or something? Their page is blown up with insults, and I see GLAAD's page is filled up with their comments too. :/ Sad how so many people can support hatred. It's weird. Well, here is the page: https://www.facebook.com/#!/Philrobertsonsupport The actual fan page of the show has seven million likes, so hopefully they will be satisfied with six million + viewers, right?
So an employer should not be allowed to fire an employee that smears their reputation? ---------- Post added 20th Dec 2013 at 10:38 AM ---------- What does this have to do with political correctness? If you insult people, they won't watch your show. Simple as that. Why should an employer keep on someone who loses them money?
