GD's next crap thread: Free speach or blatant attempt to discredit gays?

[Harambe]

I'm not sure what "cool" has to do with it. Reality TV is always an attempt to make money off of people in exchange for offering them some sort of fame. Robertson just killed that one goose.

Does anyone really think that Phil Robertson will in any way suffer from this? For every dollar he loses from A&E, he will get back at least that much riding the Christian persecution complex. There will be speaking engagements, fundraisers, books sold on WorldNetDaily, etc.

He's already suspended, which in itself is a reprimand.

Phil didn't kill anything, A&E did. They pulled the plug on him for being what they paid him to do, just be him. A&E does not own the rights to his life or opinions. Given how big a bumpkin he is, I thought he voiced his opinion pretty darn well. And yet, he's blasted.

 

[Gameface]

I work for a hospital. If I go on a TV interview with my job plastered below my name, and spout off on ObamaCare (either pro or con), I'm risking my job, and the stakes are greater when you are high-profile. If A&E chose to keep Robertson, fine with me. However, he doesn't deserve any special consideration in that regard.

I don't disagree. I just think he hasn't really crossed the threshold into hate speech or advocating for discrimination against gay people (didn't listen or read the whole interview, not too interested in doing so). He says he thinks it's a sin. He's religious. Pretty much all major religions teach their members that. If you accept religious institutions as the authorities on their faiths then he's just repeating what is the established religious stand on the issue. Why would anyone act surprised? If his view is unacceptable shouldn't people be taking this up with the religious institutions teaching it, not their followers who repeat it?

 

[One Brow]

So this notion of the entire population (I am sure there are those that do) against gay rights is doing so out of hate is as foolish as being against gay rights.

I doubt you would make such a statement about people who are/were against civil rights for people of different skin colors (and yes, there are religions that teach skin color is an indicator of moral worth or God's favor). Just because the hate is impersonal to the hater (aka "hate the sin") does not make it impersonal to the hated.

The whole point of this life from the normal Christian view point is free agency. Now they want to limit any choice that goes agaisnt the teachings of Christ? If everyone is forced into obedience then what is the point?

Are you saying that, to allow Robertson to voice his opinions, we must force A&E to keep him on the payroll/show? No one has interfered with Robertson's ability to choose, or voice his opinions.

 

[Harambe]

By the way, that's a pretty judgmental and ugly sentiment in a couple of different ways.

If you read the article, he admits to being white trash. He knows, and accepts it. It's only negative if you see it that way.

 

[One Brow]

But ultimately, those companies are looking out for THEIR bottom line and don't want to give up on effective advertising channels. I'm skeptical that sponsor boycotts are ever carried out to the extent of causing long-term damage. And often, they backfire (Chick-fil-a)

You could be right about that. A&E might be making a mistake in anticipating how their sponsors would react.

 

[7StraightIsGreat]

I think 90% of our population needs to be educated on just what the right to free speech means as it was written in our constitution.

It was put in there to give each and every American the right to voice their opinions without fear of Government retaliation or persuction. I think in the here and now, most Americans honestly believe "Free Speech" means that they can say what they want, when they want with zero repurcussions from anybody. That is simply not the case.

Phil is entitled to voice his opinions (as he did) and A&E is free to react to those opinions how they see fit (as they did). Pretty cut and dried.

 

[Harambe]

I think 90% of our population needs to be educated on just what the right to free speech means as it was written in our constitution.

It was put in there to give each and every American the right to voice their opinions without fear of Government retaliation or persuction. I think in the here and now, most Americans honestly believe "Free Speech" means that they can say what they want, when they want with zero repurcussions from anybody. That is simply not the case.

Phil is entitled to voice his opinions (as he did) and A&E is free to react to those opinions how they see fit (as they did). Pretty cut and dried.

I can not argue with the fact that they had the right to do this. Clearly, they did.

But the question was Should A&E have suspended this man for voicing his beliefs to a GQ reporter that interviewed him?

 

[b_line]

Here is my view on it:

Phil Robertson absolutely has his right to say whatever the hell he wants. It is his right as an American.

A&E has the right to put what ever they want (within the rights of fcc broadcasting regulations) on their television broadcasts. If they don't want to have homophobic stuffed being preached by one of their stars, they have every right to fire him. It is their right as a company, and their right as Americans.

To say that A&E infringed upon the free speech of Phil Robertson is just ridiculous, and it angers me that much of what is being said about it is that A&E is opposing Robertson's constitutional free speech rights. The particularly glaring example is that of Sarah Palin. She is out making a huge deal of this whole thing, saying that Robertson has free speech, all the while ignoring her "corporations are people too" diatribe of ******** that she was so passionate about a while ago. If free speech goes for one American citizen or group of citizens, it should be exactly the same for the others. (I know Sarah Palin is not exactly a real person, and in talking about her I am probably downgrading my intelligence in the sight of others, but it really pisses me off when people have a double standard to suit their needs.)

 

[One Brow]

I put the tangent in another thread.

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php...ing-about-rape&p=727572&viewfull=1#post727572

 

[One Brow]

I don't disagree. I just think he hasn't really crossed the threshold into hate speech or advocating for discrimination against gay people.

Fair enough. Could A&E be justified in letting him go even if he doesn't cross that threshold?

 

[One Brow]

But the question was Should A&E have suspended this man for voicing his beliefs to a GQ reporter that interviewed him?

Unless one of the posters here is an A&E executive, none of us really know the answer to what it means to them profit-wise.

Are you asking in a moral sense? Do you think A&E committed some sort of moral breach?

 

[Stoked]

I'm not sure what "cool" has to do with it. Reality TV is always an attempt to make money off of people in exchange for offering them some sort of fame. Robertson just killed that one goose.

Does anyone really think that Phil Robertson will in any way suffer from this? For every dollar he loses from A&E, he will get back at least that much riding the Christian persecution complex. There will be speaking engagements, fundraisers, books sold on WorldNetDaily, etc.

No he did not. The Robertson family has made them selves a symbol for a large portion of America. One of four things happens.

1. A&E lets him back on the show and life goes on.

2. A&E keeps the show and keep shim off air. He lives his life the way he is now and enjoys his millions.

3. The family follow him off air and another network picks them up and he is on the show.

4. A&E keeps the rights and blocks another show and the fmaily quits theirs. They go about witht he brand they have built and live their life their way and enjoy their millions.

I think that the Robertson patriach is just fine with any of those outcomes.

 

[One Brow]

No he did not. The Robertson family has made them selves a symbol for a large portion of America. One of four things happens.

1. A&E lets him back on the show and life goes on.

2. A&E keeps the show and keep shim off air. He lives his life the way he is now and enjoys his millions.

3. The family follow him off air and another network picks them up and he is on the show.

4. A&E keeps the rights and blocks another show and the fmaily quits theirs. They go about witht he brand they have built and live their life their way and enjoy their millions.

I think that the Robertson patriach is just fine with any of those outcomes.

I agree 2-4 are all possibilities. The goose I meant was #1. I don't think A&E lets him back on at this point.

I would add another possibility:
5. Robertson writes a book about how persecuted he was, and makes more money than he would have staying on the show.

 

[UGLI baby]

A&E needs the Robertson's WAAAY more than the Robertson's need A&E. This isn't a situation where the people in the show were nobodies before the show started.

The Robertson's weren't main stream famous, but they were very rich and icons in the hunting industry before Duck Dynasty was ever a thing.

dat jazzfanz.com mobile app doe

 

[Stoked]

Not exactly, but certainly a related phenomenon. I agree with you that's probably a decent part of the audience, people who want to laugh at them.

Not all of those people are doing so out of disdain for them and there way of life. They are pretty funny and crazy.

 

[One Brow]

Not all of those people are doing so out of disdain for them and there way of life. They are pretty funny and crazy.

I'm sure both you and GameFace are correct here. I've never seen the show.

 

[Stoked]

A&E needs the Robertson's WAAAY more than the Robertson's need A&E. This isn't a situation where the people in the show were nobodies before the show started.

The Robertson's weren't main stream famous, but they were very rich and icons in the hunting industry before Duck Dynasty was ever a thing.

dat jazzfanz.com mobile app doe

Very true. Since then they have branched out. They now have clothing and cookbooks for example. Even a cell phone app.

 

[Stoked]

I'm sure both you and GameFace are correct here. I've never seen the show.

It is entertaining and i am sure you would find parts of it amusing.

I am personally am supportive of the way that they end every show. Around the dinner table as a family. Pat Robertson says a prayer and as they start eating a monologue from Willie plays with a uplifting message.

 

[Harambe]

Unless one of the posters here is an A&E executive, none of us really know the answer to what it means to them profit-wise.

Are you asking in a moral sense? Do you think A&E committed some sort of moral breach?

The task of this thread was not go through charts and graphs and ask if it makes sense financially. Analysis is a professional task; not something you should have to do on a message board.

It was a simple question. Do you think that A&E should have suspended this man for voicing his beliefs to someone who was asking him. One which you answered already, a resounding "Yes."

That's when you tried to say that GQ magazine was the same forum as Duck Dynasty, which it isn't. I probably should have told you that you were being dumb right there, but I didn't. And that's my bad.

GQ magazine is not even the same company as A&E. Phil's comments reflect back to Duck Dynasty(a TV series), yes. It's the largest reason for being interviewed. But it's not on A&E TV, now is it? A&E could more easily just put up a stern(or sterner) warning. Which was exactly what GameFace was talking about.

Morally.. sure. Think of it this way: to a degree, A&E is Phil's boss. Mind you, he's already rich.. so he doesn't really need the job in the first place. How would you like it if your boss suspended you for doing something he was paying you to do?

 

[One Brow]

Morally.. sure. Think of it this way: to a degree, A&E is Phil's boss. Mind you, he's already rich.. so he doesn't really need the job in the first place. How would you like it if your boss suspended you for doing something he was paying you to do?

I don't think A&E was paying the man to offer up opinions on gay men.

If I was trying to do my job, and I made a decision that caused my boss to think I would lose the company money, I wouldn't be surprised at being fired, and I wouldn't think the company made a moral error in so doing.

That the interview is not running on A&E TV has no effect on this calculus I can determine, and your claim that being a separate company means they are a separate forum is artificial. Robertson beig interviewed at GQ is there as a member of his show.