• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Status
Not open for further replies.
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Kobie said:
That wouldn't particularly make much sense.
Click to expand...

Why, because it wouldn't offend you?

You're also misconstruing the argument (at least my argument). I'm not speaking in favor of or against Mr. Duck's suspension. I literally could not care less. I am arguing about this strictly as a First Amendment free speech issue, which it is not.
Click to expand...

Any time you are punished for expressing an opinion, it's a First Amendment free speech issue....even if the the first amendment doesn't offer a specifically prevent it.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Fenton said:
He said NOTHING indecent and he and his family could teach the rest of America ( especially the Democrats ) a thing or two about decency.

But, I say to all you Prog's this is definately a fight worth fighting.

Yes, continue to take the side of the fringe minority in this issue as you isolate the vast majority of Americans who currently stand behing the Robertsons family.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of the American people consider homosexuals to be on par with people who have sex with animals? :citation needed:
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

mac said:
Why, because it wouldn't offend you?

Any time you are punished for expressing an opinion, it's a First Amendment free speech issue....even if the the first amendment doesn't offer a specifically prevent it.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.
mac said:
With regard to employers, there is still freedom of speech unless it's specifically waived by mutual agreement.
Click to expand...

Also incorrect. VERY incorrect. Like, fractally incorrect.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Fenton said:
He said NOTHING indecent and he and his family could teach the rest of America ( especially the Democrats ) a thing or two about decency.

But, I say to all you Prog's this is definately a fight worth fighting.

Yes, continue to take the side of the fringe minority in this issue as you isolate the vast majority of Americans who currently stand behing the Robertsons family.
Click to expand...

I am not saying the Robertsons are not good people. I think Phil is a nice man and a good person. However, I think the vast majority of Americans believe that comparing homosexuality to bestiality is indecent. I also think the vast majority of Americans believe that to imply that blacks in the south were happy under Jim Crow is offensive. If don't agree then simply make such comparisons in mixed company and see what happens.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

SouthernDemocrat said:
What fantasy world do you live in? Try not measuring your words on any controversial issue at work and see what happens to you. Next time you are in the office get in front of everyone and tell them why you think homosexuality is comparable to bestiality. See if you still have a job after that one.
Click to expand...

From what I've read, he didn't compare the two to each other, simply stated he thought they were both sins...and speaking of controversial issues at work doesn't automatically grant them the right to fire you.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Kobie said:
Incorrect.


Also incorrect. VERY incorrect. Like, fractally incorrect.
Click to expand...

It's not incorrect, you have the right to free speech as guaranteed by the first amendment. It may not always be sensible to do so, but you have it.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

mac said:
It's not incorrect, you have the right to free speech as guaranteed by the first amendment. It may not always be sensible to do so, but you have it.
Click to expand...

You have the right to freedom of speech without government sanction. What you do not have is freedom from criticism or freedom from consequence. Your employer is under no Constitutional mandate to maintain association with you if the employer feels your speech will have a negative impact on the company.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

mac said:
From what I've read, he didn't compare the two to each other, simply stated he thought they were both sins...and speaking of controversial issues at work doesn't automatically grant them the right to fire you.
Click to expand...

The quote is in this thread several times. He said start with homosexuality and go from there, then listed bestiality. Its a comparison any way you slice it. He then went on to paraphrase a verse from Romans, but that verse doesn't mention bestiality, it was merely a list of sins common in Roman society that Paul was telling them they needed God's grace to be forgiven for. There is no way to look at his comment, especially if you have any knowledge of scripture at all (which Phil obviously does), and not read it as he was making that comparison.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Kobie said:
You have the right to freedom of speech without government sanction. What you do not have is freedom from criticism or freedom from consequence. Your employer is under no Constitutional mandate to maintain association with you if the employer feels your speech will have a negative impact on the company.
Click to expand...

Say what you will, the man was right about vaginas. If that had been the only thing he'd said, it'd be just laughs.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

ecofarm said:
Say what you will, the man was right about vaginas. If that had been the only thing he'd said, it'd be just laughs.
Click to expand...

You're right. I think that if he hadn't have talked about the whole "morphing out to beastiality" thing, he likely would have been fine.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

SouthernDemocrat said:
The quote is in this thread several times. He said start with homosexuality and go from there, then listed bestiality.
Click to expand...

"morphs into" that and sleeping around.

a verse from Romans,
Click to expand...

Which
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Kobie said:
You have the right to freedom of speech without government sanction. What you do not have is freedom from criticism or freedom from consequence. Your employer is under no Constitutional mandate to maintain association with you if the employer feels your speech will have a negative impact on the company.
Click to expand...

That's very true, and I have not said that A&E couldn't do what they've done. However, their right to do what they've done doesn't mean they didn't do it in response to him excercising his freedom to express his opinion...aka freedom of speech.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Kobie said:
You're right. I think that if he hadn't have talked about the whole "morphing out to beastiality" thing, he likely would have been fine.
Click to expand...

Happy black folk and white trash aside.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Kobie said:
You have the right to freedom of speech without government sanction. What you do not have is freedom from criticism or freedom from consequence. Your employer is under no Constitutional mandate to maintain association with you if the employer feels your speech will have a negative impact on the company.
Click to expand...

Wait second here I kinda disagree here. If one works for widget factory x making widgets. And gets interviewed stating an opinion contrary to their employers POV on what ever issue they should have protections. After it does not affect the product. In the ducks case image is the product. And what the duck did can impact the product
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

mac said:
From what I've read, he didn't compare the two to each other, simply stated he thought they were both sins...and speaking of controversial issues at work doesn't automatically grant them the right to fire you.
Click to expand...

Seriously? I'm not picking just on you, but on all the people on this thread who claim your company can't fire you for what you say - REALLY? haven't you heard about people getting fired for posting things critical of their company on Facebook?

They are free to post - but they have to accept there may be consequences!

And the only reason Robertson got the GQ interview was because of the show on A&E - he was definitely there to publicize the show and A&E, so he was acting in the context of an employee (and again, even if he hadn't been - they can still fire him for saying something they don't like)

By the way, he IS censored; you all are right about that. But it wasn't the GQ interview. There are terms he signed around the show that govern what he can and cannot say on the show. Still not a freedom of speech issue; he accepted the terms when he agreed to do the show. But no one started a boycott about that, did they?
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Kobie said:
You're right. I think that if he hadn't have talked about the whole "morphing out to beastiality" thing, he likely would have been fine.
Click to expand...

What part of he was not speaking for or on behalf of A&E dont you get?
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Kobie said:
You're right. I think that if he hadn't have talked about the whole "morphing out to beastiality" thing, he likely would have been fine.
Click to expand...

No that whole part where he implies blacks were happy under Jim Crow in the old south would have sunk him too.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

SouthernDemocrat said:
No that whole part where he implies blacks were happy under Jim Crow in the old south would have sunk him too.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, forgot about that part lol
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

CRUE CAB said:
What part of he was not speaking for or on behalf of A&E dont you get?
Click to expand...

That is irrelevant. Anytime you speak publicly on any subject you are representing your company if you are identified as working for them. If they don't like something you say, you can be fired for it. Welcome to the real world.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

CRUE CAB said:
What part of he was not speaking for or on behalf of A&E dont you get?
Click to expand...

I never said he was speaking on A&E's behalf. That said, if A&E felt that his comments reflected negatively on the network, they can get rid of him provided there's nothing contractual preventing them from doing so.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

winston53660 said:
Wait second here I kinda disagree here. If one works for widget factory x making widgets. And gets interviewed stating an opinion contrary to their employers POV on what ever issue they should have protections. After it does not affect the product. In the ducks case image is the product. And what the duck did can impact the product
Click to expand...

This isn't my opinion -- this is what the First Amendment means. Even if it doesn't affect the product, your employer doesn't have to keep you around if they don't want to be associated with your (the royal you) brand of speech.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

paddymcdougall said:
Seriously? I'm not picking just on you, but on all the people on this thread who claim your company can't fire you for what you say - REALLY? haven't you heard about people getting fired for posting things critical of their company on Facebook?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. :shrug:
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

fmw said:
The loser in this will be A&E because, in the end the Robertsons will move the show to a different network and A&E will lose their major money maker. So what they did is a poor business decision. I'm not even going to get into the comments because I don't care what bearded people or non bearded people say on TV shows. I'm a businessman the outcome of this thing seems pretty easy to determine.
Click to expand...


You don't think they might have a contract with A&E or anything, do you? You don't think that maybe A&E will sue them if they try that, do you?
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

CRUE CAB said:
What part of he was not speaking for or on behalf of A&E dont you get?
Click to expand...

People just don't like him anymore. All the non-hillfolk have had enough. We can find pig hunters or something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom