Phil from Duck Dynasty gets in trouble for being against homosexuality

[Autumnlicious]

Oh no! I wrote Suck Dynasty instead of Duck Dynasty! Some mod please fix that? People that don't like the show would probably find that funny, but as a fan I feel it may confuse people when I say I like it.

Done

[Chad32]

Thankies.

[EgoRaptor]

Does a private corporation not have the right to manage its own business & control the message it sends without people nagging them? A&E is the one being persecuted here. Social conservatives are trying to force a private corporation to air views it disagrees with.

[Chad32]

This kind of thing doesn't even come up in the show, though. They're not airing anything they disagree with. They just suspended someone who holds views typical of the region, and mentioned it off the show.

[EgoRaptor]

This kind of thing doesn't even come up in the show, though. They're not airing anything they disagree with. They just suspended someone who holds views typical of the region, and mentioned it off the show.

Part of free association is that you have the right not to associate with those who you don't ant to be associated with. I think A&E made the right call here.

[Logisch]

This kind of thing doesn't even come up in the show, though. They're not airing anything they disagree with. They just suspended someone who holds views typical of the region, and mentioned it off the show.

Part of free association is that you have the right not to associate with those who you don't ant to be associated with. I think A&E made the right call here.

Yep. It's a political thing. A&E wants to maintain an image that is friendly to the LGBT community. Associating with people that don't support that makes them look bad in that manner.

One could argue that it's a political stunt by A&E to stir up controversy and get more views. However, that'd be a pretty far reach without proof to back that up.

[Jackalope]

A&E made the right call - they don't wish to be associated with people who publicly make such statements in public, as is their right.

Same goes with Food Network and Paula Deen.

It appears that both networks want to keep an egalitarian image, which I fully support.

You want to be a bigot? Knock yourself out - but when you work in the television industry where image matters, don't be surprised when making public statements affects your employability.

[Raeven]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8ukak8P2vY

[Brakeman]

We all know that there is a large portion of the population that is against gay marriage. Do they just not get to have any television shows where those views are expressed because you or another group of people find it offensive? It's called target audience, you may not be in it.

If NBC wanted to air a show called "Nigger Talk" I wouldn't watch it, but that doesn't mean I'm going to keep them from doing the show either if they believe it is a smart business choice and will garner enough audience.

Television and radio as many other public venues are transmitted over public airways and cables, and as such should not be used to incite hatred.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees Wiki

If A&E continued to air Robertson, they could be sued by their own employees.

Radio and television broadcasting has more limited First Amendment protection than other media. In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, the Supreme Court invoked what has become known as the “scarcity rationale” to justify this discrimination:
Where there are substantially more individuals who want to broadcast than there are frequencies to allocate, it is idle to posit an unabridgeable First Amendment right to broadcast comparable to the right of every individual to speak, write, or publish. 168
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf

The proper response to hate speech is public ostracism. They should be called out for their support for hate speech, just as I'm calling you out on your support. If you support Phil Robertson who uses his popularity to attack and to completely mis-characterize innocent people then you are a major asshole. To paint people who are gay as sinners of choice, is to ignore modern advance and go back to the ignorant goat herder days from whence came the bibles. It was a long hard fight to stop the majority whites from claiming that backs were "subhuman mud people" and the descendants of Hamm, cursed by god to be slaves. We fought a war over over this, a religious war called the American civil war. The south thought the bible gave them the right to treat black people like animals. They howled about their "Constitutional Rights" to hate then too. In the end, the nation had to shoot and hang a great many "Phil Robertsons" in the day.

Phil should be countered with the public outcry that he is an awful and disgusting person, and that his beliefs are just as awful and disgusting.

[Ryantology]

That's the idea behind freedom of speech. We can't stop people from thinking what they do. What we can and should do it make laws against persecuting people like this.

It's not persecution to suffer backlash for offering a stupid and uninformed opinion.