Phil from Duck Dynasty gets in trouble for being against homosexuality

[Anomalocaris]

Also I don't want to think of my mother and grandmother as sick, twisted, evil people. They just have outdated views.

Why is a view outdated if it is not sick, twisted and evil by contemporary standards?

[FlyingNarwhal]

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.

If a company or a show decides to air racist material that should be their prerogative, and the consumers should make the decisions about whether or not they want to watch. If they watch, then the show hit it's target audience. If they don't, then the show fails and it's history.

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

That would be the key part there. He voiced his opinion in an interview, he isn't harassing people on the job. If he walked up to his producer and said he was gonna constantly berate any gay people on the show that would be a totally different situation. But there is a difference between just voicing an opinion and being hostile. And again this wasn't done while they were filming, this was a completely separate interview.

[quote='Brakeman' pid='568097' dateline='1387759500']
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

This is completely unrelated. This law is limited to broadcast media first of all, which again, the interview was done for a magazine. So what he says is immediately untouchable by this law. Second, let's take a look at the next paragraph after your link.

The Court made this statement in upholding the constitutionality of the Federal Communication
Commission’s “fairness doctrine,” which required broadcast media licensees to provide coverage
of controversial issues of interest to the community and to provide a reasonable opportunity for
the presentation of contrasting viewpoints on such issues.

Even if he was on broadcast media the law doesn't prohibit him from saying anything controversial, it requires that if he does say something controversial that the broadcast company allot time for an opposite viewpoint.

And to go even further this law wasn't even made because of discrimination or hate speech. I know you saw the word discrimination in that excerpt of yours and jumped the gun a little bit, but this law is about giving each side an equal amount of time because of the scarcity of radio and television channels (pre cable and satellite radio). When they use the word discrimination here, they are talking about the discrimination of view points, not just people. But again to reiterate, this whole law cannot touch the magazine interview.

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.

And you have the freedom to speak against him if you wish. And I want to repeat, I do not support what he says but I do support that he should be able to say what he chooses to. And ultimately it is A&E's choice of whether they want to fire him or not. The only reason I'm opting for not firing him is because I do not watch the show. The people that watch the show and buy the merchandise should be the ones with the say. If they say get rid of him and A&E obliges I'll have no problem. But from what I've read there are two petitions both with over 100,000 signatures calling for him to be put back on the show, there are facebook groups with over a million people calling for him to be put back on the show, and I know Cracker Barrel pulled Duck Dynasty merch only to have a tide of angry customers write in complaints until they reversed the decision. Apparently the consumers of the show want him on, and I don't think Robertson should be fired if the fans of the show want him back.

[Chad32]

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.

I didn't say it was. I'm just saying you shouldn't punish someone for having opinions. You can disagree if you want.

Why is a view outdated if it is not sick, twisted and evil by contemporary standards?

It's outdated simply because it's incorrect. I don't think my mother should be fined or jailed for holding an opinion, unless she acted on it by hanging someone or something.

[Psykhronic]

But Phil was not fined or jailed. He faced the consequence of exercising free speech - you can say whatever the fuck you want, but others are going to respond how they see fit. As long as the response is not a legal one - as in, a charge of a crime - nothing is technically wrong with this.

[Chad32]

They suspended him indefinitely for something he said outside the show. I just don't think they should have done that. Do they plan to get written statements from the rest of the cast that they don't share that view?

[Psykhronic]

Why would they? This is about Phil, not the rest of the cast. Yeah they suspended him, but that is not a legal ramification. If it were, that would be unconstitutional and something I would personally give a shit about.

[Tonus]

That's not so unusual for people who are on (or associated with) media of some form or another. Clauses of that sort are probably common in contracts if you are going to be on TV or radio in their various forms. For example, athletes in the major sports in the USA can be fined and even suspended for making certain comments or using certain words. The same with radio or TV personalities, who can also be fired under certain circumstances. Their right to free speech is not being violated; they are not being arrested or dragged to court to answer for a crime. But there may still be consequences for saying something that could damage your employer/sponsor's reputation or bottom line.

[houseofcantor]

I like the show, and hope to see him back. What do you guys think?

I think yer pretty much alone in the "liking" department.

I hadda vote "don't care" because I don't watch that stuff; beyond that, from the little I know, punishing a redneck for being a redneck on reality redneck TV ain't really reality.

[Chad32]

Why would they? This is about Phil, not the rest of the cast. Yeah they suspended him, but that is not a legal ramification. If it were, that would be unconstitutional and something I would personally give a shit about.

I doubt he's the only person down there that believes it. The only difference is that he mentioned it in an interview. If they were so appalled by what he thought, then the rest of them should come into question too. I just don't think they really are, and they only punished him for saying what he felt, which makes the company a bit hypocritical.

[Psykhronic]

The rest of them probably do share his views, the difference is - the others did not, at least as far as we know, spout them to a magazine. Look, I personally couldn't give a fuck if someone has shitty views as long as they do their job, but the reality is - A&E did nothing worse than others have done in similar cases, such as Paula Dean, and I do not know why people are suddenly caring now. And legally, they did nothing wrong - so this isn't a breach of the first amendment like some have claimed. Ultimately, a media outlet - which has a huge focus on image - made a decision regarding an association with someone.