• 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!

Phil Robertson returns to A&E

We are talking free speech, you wouldn't want someone to get punished for free speech right? So it should be illegal for your boss to fire you for calling him an asshole right?

I don't have to worry about it, I don't work for assholes
 
We are talking free speech, you wouldn't want someone to get punished for free speech right? So it should be illegal for your boss to fire you for calling him an asshole right?

My boss would respect me for having the balls to say it.
 
dude the suspension has been lifted, including the season filmed already and the 2015 season. it is already over.

Since the "redneck vote" is their target audience and the people complaining do not even watch the show, kudos to A&E for making a smart business decision
A&E has the right to make any decision they want. And, the people who don't like it, one way or the other, can boycott them. That's freedom, by definition, IMO.
 
So you don't care about hypothetical, don't want to talk about A&E's rights, and suddenly are all about no "guilt by association."

Only if you you lack the ability to understand basic English: 1) your hypothetical doesn't address anything of merit. it brings up an irrelevant act that has no bearing on the discussion, because 1) I don't need to account for the behavior of random conservatives 2) it's an attempt at Tu quoque 3) Your hypothetical ignored the fact that A&E isn't acting on some morally principled position, but responding to the threat of a commercial boycott from GLAAD. An action that clearly doesn't serve their long term interests and simply adds perceived legitimacy to their opposition while failing to address the topic (which lacks a clear social mandate like IR relationships) in a more constructive manor.

hence, the value of free speech over simple attempts to suppress it. because if we follow the principle of free speech, we rob Phil of any attempt to claim a commercial, moral, and strategic victory here; make him look like an ass; avoid legitimizing the perception that groups like glaad are trying to blur the lines between acceptance and tolerance (a criticism that seems very legitimate) and waging a war on traditional values; and can possibly promote an idea, while clearly trending in that direction, hasn't reached a clear social consensus

Because it leads to an inconvenient place for you politically.

No, something being irrelevant means it has no bearing on any point I raised . Not that it's inconvenient for me. You lacking the ability to understand the very simple reason why it's irrelevant doesn't change that and isn't my problem

A&E is not bound by any law to put Phil Robertson on TV.

No **** sherlock, which is why I pointed out the concept of free speech was different than constitutional 1st amendment protection. Or does the difference between what is legal and what should be done escape you like most other simple concepts?


End of story. They don't have to do that, and are well within their rights to say no.

I'm still lost on how raising irrelevant points addresses anything in my argument
 
I don't have to worry about it, I don't work for assholes

That wasn't the question was it? Should it also be illegal for a boss to fire you for you calling him an asshole?

I know you are running fast from this question.
 
That wasn't the question was it? Should it also be illegal for a boss to fire you for you calling him an asshole?

I know you are running fast from this question.

I am not running from anything, why do your persist in this ridiculous dialogue. I would think if you wanted to have a discussion about balls you would actually have the balls to start a thread about it. To answer your question name calling will not get you fired, if it does it will be tied to other things like performance.
 
To answer your question name calling will not get you fired, if it does it will be tied to other things like performance.

Now you are flat out lying. Yes, calling your boss an asshole CAN and in most cases WILL get you fired.
 
Now you are flat out lying. Yes, calling your boss an asshole CAN and in most cases WILL get you fired.

Only if he/she is an insecure ***** which means I wouldn't be working there to begin with. Of course I have always had performance paying careers and a good looking P&L affords one many more privileges when it comes to honest feed back.
 
A&E has the right to make any decision they want. And, the people who don't like it, one way or the other, can boycott them. That's freedom, by definition, IMO.

Now you know that is not true.
 
Now you know that is not true.

Sure it is. They can make any decision they want and people who don't like it, one way or the other, can boycott them. If that scares them, then they have to reevaluate. Either way, it's their call. Right?

Or, are you one of those who thinks Obama is King, making A&E kau tau to some imaginary "Homosexual Agenda"?
 
I've not seen it, and neither have you. However to think that such a clause would appear is not exactly unheard of. You can be sure that A&E's lawyers dotted the i's and crossed all the t's. It ain't just some slapdash operation.

For some reason, your side got it in your collective heads that there was no clause about hurting the show in public interviews, and that they could just pick up and move to a different network because they felt like it. IF that's true, then A&E has the dumbest lawyers on the planet bar none.
Just how did a statement that is supported by most people and expresses a commonly held opinion by a majority of people and CERTAINLY by the 14 million viewers of the show 'hurt the show'? Faced it...the vast majority of the vocal minority that comment on this topic have never SEEN the show.
 
Back
Top Bottom