Freedom of Religious Opinion? Not If You're Phil Robertson

[Sunshine]

It all boils down to this:

While a TV network has all the right in the world to regulate what is put on their programming, they are always and ultimately at the mercy of their viewership. People could have simply changed the channel, but nope. Some of them see it as an outlet to attack people of faith, irregardless of what rights the actors/network have.

^^^this

and that is what is happening. they have the absolute right to fire according to their views( or lack thereof), since they are the private enterprise.

He has the absolute right to sue if he feels like it.

we have the absolute right to support whomever we choose to.

what all of us are doing.

For now.

 

[Sunshine]

If you think what you see on the screen is "reality" --- why does the show have writers?

What do the writers write? If, in fact, the show was scripted wouldn't the writers just write out all those references to God, Jesus and guns rather than tell the family to stop mentioning the subject?

No, not if it $ells.
Some of y'all keep imagining the Producer acts out of some kind of ideology. They don't. They sell what $ells.

If you really think that family spends time memorizing lines you never saw the show.

So you're saying they're stupid rednecks? Or just stupid?
Well, there you have it. "Rednecks" and "Hillbillies" are the last group it is politically correct to ridicule.
Run with that.

Well, there you have it. "Rednecks" and "Hillbillies" are the last group it is politically correct to ridicule.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Interesting to note that what he said is no worse than what many politicians have said. But I don't think any of them lost their jobs. So from a 'freedom of religious expression' pov, the Dynasty guy did get an unfair treatment.

 

[Sunshine]

Uhh law trumps everything. That's why it's called "law".

Seriously? Law so absolute that it regulates speech? What kind of law is that?

First Amendment jurisprudence – shouting fire in a crowded theater or advocating for imminent lawlessness, for example.

Although our rights are inalienable, they’re not absolute, and subject to reasonable government restrictions.

I don't suppose you could post a case to validate your point. No. Of course you can't.

 

[Sunshine]

Seriously? Law so absolute that it regulates speech? What kind of law is that?

First Amendment jurisprudence – shouting fire in a crowded theater or advocating for imminent lawlessness, for example.

Although our rights are inalienable, they’re not absolute, and subject to reasonable government restrictions.

Do you hear yourself right now? If our rights are "subject to reasonable government restrictions" whats to stop government from pushing the boundaries of "reasonable"?

Jurisprudence restricting speech can set terrible precedent.

Some speech is restricted: Incitement to violence, speech that would endanger the public. Threats are illegal and threatening the president constitutes a felony.

 

[Sunshine]

It all boils down to this:

While a TV network has all the right in the world to regulate what is put on their programming, they are always and ultimately at the mercy of their viewership. People could have simply changed the channel, but nope. Some of them see it as an outlet to attack people of faith, irregardless of what rights the actors/network have.

^^^this

and that is what is happening. they have the absolute right to fire according to their views( or lack thereof), since they are the private enterprise.

He has the absolute right to sue if he feels like it.

"Sue" huh?

On the basis of .... what?

we have the absolute right to support whomever we choose to.

what all of us are doing.

"all of us" huh?
Lemme loin ya a truth about mass media. "Boycotts" don't work. For every regular viewer who commits to turning off the show there's five more on the side who weren't really watching that will now tune in to see what it's all about. That's how mass psychology works. That's why we say there's "no such thing as bad publicity". That's exactly what that means.

Lush Rimjob's ratings also spiked after he slandered that student. Same thing. That's why I keep pointing out that audience ratings do not measure assent, they measure attention. And attention can be acquired in a lot of ways, especially negative spectacles.

A&E was already making money off this goofy-ass show. Now they stand to make more. Their competitors are envious.

Boycotts do work in mass media. Clearly you have never heard of 'ratings.'

Nielsen ratings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sunshine]

Jon Gosselin Violates Morals Clause, Moves On with Reality Show

The above was already posted.

Now either shut up or say something else stupid.

You have still yet to prove there was a "morals clause" in his contract. I don't remember A&E citing that as the reason for his suspension either. Unless you have something proving otherwise.

I've never tried to prove that. You and your posse of braindeads like Katzndogz and Kosh keep insisting this:

He can't be punished like an actor would be punished

Yes, he can. Just because he's playing himself (at least sort of) doesn't make him a non-performer/actor/artist.

Stop making me repeat stuff.

And how are actors punished. I still see actors, like Alec Baldwin, going great guns even though they have been shown publically to be abusive.

 

[TemplarKormac]

First Amendment jurisprudence – shouting fire in a crowded theater or advocating for imminent lawlessness, for example.

Although our rights are inalienable, they’re not absolute, and subject to reasonable government restrictions.

Do you hear yourself right now? If our rights are "subject to reasonable government restrictions" whats to stop government from pushing the boundaries of "reasonable"?

Jurisprudence restricting speech can set terrible precedent.

Some speech is restricted: Incitement to violence, speech that would endanger the public. Threats are illegal and threatening the president constitutes a felony.

That's reasonable. But given the propensity of those in power to push the envelope, such a definition can be changed where even simple religious expression can be seen as an "incitement to violence" or "endangering the public." Threats to the president are unacceptable. Period.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

10 Dumbest Things Ever Said About Same-Sex Marriage | Politics News | Rolling Stone

2. Marriage equality is "a threat to the nation's survival in the long run."
Representative Trent Franks (R-Arizona)

3. Same-sex marriage is like "counterfeit money."

Wasting no time after the Supreme Court rulings yesterday, Penny Nance of the organization Concerned Women for America immediately compared gays getting married to counterfeit money, arguing gay marriage "takes something that's the real deal and diminishes it." She also said it was sure to lead to polygamy.

5. Christians must engage in "spiritual warfare" to combat same-sex marriage.

This call-to-arms came from Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota) – who has also claimed that a teacher who talks about the concept of gayness with students is engaging in child abuse. This is only one of many horrifically bigoted statements made by Bachmann, who founded the House Tea Party Caucus and made sure her hateful beliefs were a key part of the Tea Party agenda.

6. "If gays are granted rights, next we'll have to give rights to prostitutes and to people who sleep with St. Bernards and to nail biters."

Beauty pageant winner and singer Anita Bryant made this shockingly dumb statement back in 1977, during her Save the Children campaign, which worked to repeal anti-discrimination legislation across the nation passed to protect homosexuals. Charming!

7. "I think it's a conundrum. If we have no laws on this, people take it to one extension further, does it have to be humans, you know?"

Deep-thinking Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) raised this question yesterday, suggesting that the Supreme Court's ruling might mean human beings would begin to marry animals.

10. "My analysis is that the gays are about 5 percent of the attack on marriage in this country, and the feminists are about 95 percent."

Not content to simply rail against the still yet-to-be-passed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), conservative lawyer and activist Phyllis Schlafly lashed out against feminists and homosexuals in one fell swoop with this ever-quotable quote. For the record, the ERA is a proposed amendment to the constitution granting equal rights to women. Feminists have been trying to pass it in the United States since 1923. And it has nothing to do with "attacking marriage."

 

[Sunshine]

.

Interesting to see the American Left - the folks who so passionately proclaimed their commitment to free love, free expression and freedom from The Man not two generations ago - now so cynically clamping down on freedom of expression as they move to control and micromanage our lives more and more with each passing day.

.

the motto of the left is

YOU must love ME, or else

More like: "You must love what I love, or else."

 

[Iceman]

Uh Oh!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Piers Morgan: First Amendment 'Shouldn't Protect Vile Bigots' Like Phil RobertsonPiers Morgan: First Amendment 'Shouldn't Protect Vile Bigots' Like Phil Robertson

That limey scum should be executed.

 

[Sunshine]

When is GLAAD going to show up in West Monroe to protest at the Duck Commander headquarters. Have a gay pride parade right down main street.

Better yet, when are they going to show up to stop the Westboro Baptist Church from picketing gay funerals, something the SCOTUS has said they have every right to do provided the keep a certain distance away.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Uh Oh!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Piers Morgan: First Amendment 'Shouldn't Protect Vile Bigots' Like Phil RobertsonPiers Morgan: First Amendment 'Shouldn't Protect Vile Bigots' Like Phil Robertson

That limey scum should be executed.

You should leave. An opinion that suggests genocide is not an opinion. Nobody has the freedom to slaughter someone because they are gay. The thought of it turns my stomach.

 

[rightwinger]

When is GLAAD going to show up in West Monroe to protest at the Duck Commander headquarters. Have a gay pride parade right down main street.

I would never buy one of their duck calls...

Show them

 

[Sunshine]

Do you hear yourself right now? If our rights are "subject to reasonable government restrictions" whats to stop government from pushing the boundaries of "reasonable"?

Jurisprudence restricting speech can set terrible precedent.

Some speech is restricted: Incitement to violence, speech that would endanger the public. Threats are illegal and threatening the president constitutes a felony.

That's reasonable. But given the propensity of those in power to push the envelope, such a definition can be changed where even simple religious expression can be seen as an "incitement to violence" or "endangering the public." Threats to the president are unacceptable. Period.

It takes more than simple expressions to incite violence or endanger the public.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action. Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. In the process, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) was explicitly overruled, and doubt was cast on Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919), and Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951).

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Since our resident law student can't seem to find cases, I'll do it this time.)

 

[Sunshine]

Uh Oh!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Piers Morgan: First Amendment 'Shouldn't Protect Vile Bigots' Like Phil RobertsonPiers Morgan: First Amendment 'Shouldn't Protect Vile Bigots' Like Phil Robertson

That limey scum should be executed.

Piers is just one generation away from feudalism, if indeed he is removed from it at all.

 

[Gracie]

The ones that are REALLY fucked are the ones that just enjoyed the show. Gay, straight, black, white, brown, yellow, green purple, men, women, kids, teens. The show will end and those that liked watching will be doomed with more pawn shows or set-up storage wars or worse..more kardashians.

Thanks GLAAD.

 

[Iceman]

Uh Oh!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Piers Morgan: First Amendment 'Shouldn't Protect Vile Bigots' Like Phil RobertsonPiers Morgan: First Amendment 'Shouldn't Protect Vile Bigots' Like Phil Robertson

That limey scum should be executed.

You should leave. An opinion that suggests genocide is not an opinion. Nobody has the freedom to slaughter someone because they are gay. The thought of it turns my stomach.

Executing a subversive isn't genocide you moron. I never brought up executing gays, that is absurd.This foreigner is trying to subvert the laws of our Republic, in this case, attacking the First Amendment. In sane societies, subversives are executed.

You do realize what the punishment for treason is, right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

At this point, there is probably nothing A&E could do to rescue the relationship. The Robertsons might just have had it with the network.

I hope they leave...A&E allowed Glaad to put this family through hell over an interview from some magazine..

I hope they leave too. A & E watchers deserve better programing.

Hey, they have Bates Motel. That's the closest thing to a watchable series I've seen them show in ages.

 

[Gadawg73]

I have now decided to watch no other network than A&E

I am watching it right now

Oh now, A & E hired and paid Robertson for how many years knowing what he stood for?
A & E knew full well his views on women, gays and blacks.
They only caved in when THEY were caught same as Robertson.
A & E is as much to blame as Robertson.