You could be right about that. A&E might be making a mistake in anticipating how their sponsors would react.
GD's next crap thread: Free speach or blatant attempt to discredit gays?
- Thread starter Harambe
- Start date
You could be right about that. A&E might be making a mistake in anticipating how their sponsors would react.
7StraightIsGreat
Well-Known Member
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.
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
Well-Known Member
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.)
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.)
I put the tangent in another thread.
https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php...ing-about-rape&p=727572&viewfull=1#post727572
https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php...ing-about-rape&p=727572&viewfull=1#post727572
Fair enough. Could A&E be justified in letting him go even if he doesn't cross that threshold?
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?
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
Well-Known Member
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
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
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.