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

[Pogo]

Yes, and the family has the right to not negotiate with a new contract and to go to another network.

Sure. No one has suggested otherwise...

You did by saying the rights are all on the side of the Producer.
I pointed out that the family also has rights not just the producer.

Not in the morality clause of a production contract they don't, hell no. A new contract is whatever's in it, but all this discussion is under the current contract.

 

[peach174]

Edge if you want me to say that the folks causing the controversy were OK for doing so you're not going to get that out of me. I don't agree with it and think it's people stupidly trying to make something out of nothing.

But (again) there are contracts signed between TV personalities and their networks stating "if said actor stirs up controversy in the news that can be considered harmful to the network, they have a right to be fired". Controversy is controversy. Makes no difference if it's valid controversy. Most networks want their stars to behave in a predictable manner.

And.... Of course they're not going to fire the guy. He has delivered the #1 show in cable history, and he's a goldmine. However by "suspending" him A&E covered their asses by making it absolutely clear they are not endorsing his opinion. Most networks want to remain neutral on issues like these.

Again, before you start calling everyone a "bigot", just stop and take two seconds to figure out if you're using the word in the correct manner.

It took (??) Network a long time to fire Charlie Sheen.

Was it because he was so good? Or was it because the Network was afraid of a lawsuit does it even matter?

Of course Networks have a right..... No, they have a duty, to protect their brand.

But that's not what happened here and you're too sophisticated to argue otherwise.

Edge - whether you or I personally agree with or disagree with the gay lifestyle is beyond the point.

The point is both of us know it's a highly controversial, touchy, and dividing issue with the American population. That's just how it is. If it appears that A&E endorses a strictly Christian view there's a potential to lose a lot of viewers if things don't go well and I believe A&E just wanted to instantly distance itself from the comments to protect its ass.

It's most certainly about protecting the brand, and if you can't see this you're fooling yourself.

A&E's CEO made the decision because of several things. Death threats, offending Gay employees and pressure from GLAAD.
Duck Dynasty: Phil Robertson Suspended Because of Gay A&E Employees - The Hollywood Gossip

 

[peach174]

Sure. No one has suggested otherwise...

You did by saying the rights are all on the side of the Producer.
I pointed out that the family also has rights not just the producer.

Not in the morality clause of a production contract they don't, hell no. A new contract is whatever's in it, but all this discussion is under the current contract.

Which will effect the Families decision on a new contract and that is also part of the discussion.

Robertson was placed on "indefinite" suspension from the show mid-week. The Duck Dynasty cast has responded to the controversy, expressing disappointment and implying that the show won't go on without their patriarch. - See more at: Duck Dynasty: Phil Robertson Suspended Because of Gay A&E Employees - The Hollywood Gossip

 

[koshergrl]

They didn't "fold".

They're airing the episodes that have already been filmed. Phil is still "suspended".

"Robertson will be back on the hugely popular show – which regularly pulls in 12 million viewers – when filming recommences in January."

Unsurprisingly, the Daily Mail has lied to you again.

Here's the Entertainment Tonight article that they're claiming is their source:
'Duck Dynasty': New episodes will include Phil | Inside TV | EW.com

Notice there's nothing about "filming" in January.

"Regardless of the current controversy and behind-the-scenes tension, A&E has every intention of keeping Phil Robertson on the air."

"A source close to the situation confirmed that when the network resumes airing new episodes of Duck Dynasty starting Jan. 15 footage featuring the Robertson patriarch will indeed remain intact..."

“There’s no negotiation to have; we’re doing the show,” said an insider close to the situation."

They're going to resume like normal Jan 15.

'Duck Dynasty': New episodes will include Phil | Inside TV | EW.com

 

[Pogo]

You did by saying the rights are all on the side of the Producer.
I pointed out that the family also has rights not just the producer.

Not in the morality clause of a production contract they don't, hell no. A new contract is whatever's in it, but all this discussion is under the current contract.

Which will effect the Families decision on a new contract and that is also part of the discussion.

Robertson was placed on "indefinite" suspension from the show mid-week. The Duck Dynasty cast has responded to the controversy, expressing disappointment and implying that the show won't go on without their patriarch. - See more at: Duck Dynasty: Phil Robertson Suspended Because of Gay A&E Employees - The Hollywood Gossip

No, it is not.

Neither TV Producers nor Talent act on what may or may not be in a future contract. They act on the present one. If we acted on future hypotheticals, contracts would mean nothing.

 

[thanatos144]

Not in the morality clause of a production contract they don't, hell no. A new contract is whatever's in it, but all this discussion is under the current contract.

Which will effect the Families decision on a new contract and that is also part of the discussion.

Robertson was placed on "indefinite" suspension from the show mid-week. The Duck Dynasty cast has responded to the controversy, expressing disappointment and implying that the show won't go on without their patriarch. - See more at: Duck Dynasty: Phil Robertson Suspended Because of Gay A&E Employees - The Hollywood Gossip

No, it is not.

Neither TV Producers nor Talent act on what may or may not be in a future contract. They act on the present one. If we acted on future hypotheticals, contracts would mean nothing.

You don't know what's in their contract stop acting like you know anything because don't know a ******* thing

tapatalk post

 

[The T]

"Robertson will be back on the hugely popular show – which regularly pulls in 12 million viewers – when filming recommences in January."

Unsurprisingly, the Daily Mail has lied to you again.

Here's the Entertainment Tonight article that they're claiming is their source:
'Duck Dynasty': New episodes will include Phil | Inside TV | EW.com

Notice there's nothing about "filming" in January.

"Regardless of the current controversy and behind-the-scenes tension, A&E has every intention of keeping Phil Robertson on the air."

"A source close to the situation confirmed that when the network resumes airing new episodes of Duck Dynasty starting Jan. 15 footage featuring the Robertson patriarch will indeed remain intact..."

“There’s no negotiation to have; we’re doing the show,” said an insider close to the situation."

They're going to resume like normal Jan 15.

'Duck Dynasty': New episodes will include Phil | Inside TV | EW.com

Yep. Phill has already been recorded, and A&E has an obligation...do you realize what will happen? MORE that have never seen it, will be watching. What a boon...a ratings Bonanza coup A&E will have?

 

[peach174]

Not in the morality clause of a production contract they don't, hell no. A new contract is whatever's in it, but all this discussion is under the current contract.

Which will effect the Families decision on a new contract and that is also part of the discussion.

Robertson was placed on "indefinite" suspension from the show mid-week. The Duck Dynasty cast has responded to the controversy, expressing disappointment and implying that the show won't go on without their patriarch. - See more at: Duck Dynasty: Phil Robertson Suspended Because of Gay A&E Employees - The Hollywood Gossip

No, it is not.

Neither TV Producers nor Talent act on what may or may not be in a future contract. They act on the present one. If we acted on future hypotheticals, contracts would mean nothing.

That is not what I'm saying Pogo.
If A&E does not reinstate Phil in future productions that are left in this contract, the Family are implying that they will not make a new contract for any future shows.
A&E are making a mint off of this show, so I don't think that they will shoot themselves in the foot and Phil will be in future shows that are left under this contract.

 

[Pogo]

Which will effect the Families decision on a new contract and that is also part of the discussion.

Robertson was placed on "indefinite" suspension from the show mid-week. The Duck Dynasty cast has responded to the controversy, expressing disappointment and implying that the show won't go on without their patriarch. - See more at: Duck Dynasty: Phil Robertson Suspended Because of Gay A&E Employees - The Hollywood Gossip

No, it is not.

Neither TV Producers nor Talent act on what may or may not be in a future contract. They act on the present one. If we acted on future hypotheticals, contracts would mean nothing.

You don't know what's in their contract stop acting like you know anything because don't know a ******* thing

tapatalk post

tick... tick... tick...

Actually I do know what typically goes in them, such as here (paragraph 13, page 15)...

or this typical language, already posted many times:

>> "If at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program."


Not to mention this industry publication story about the instant case:

>> TheWrap spoke to multiple legal experts who said that, if Robertson’s contract contained a morals clause — as if often the case with on-air talent — than the reality TV star has little in the way of legal recourse.

Often, such morals clauses note that, if talents speaks or acts in a way that insults or denigrates people, the producer reserves the right to suspend or terminate that talent.

And typically, defining such language or actions is left to the discretion of the studio — basically, “if we say it is so, it is.” Tough to mount a legal argument against that.

“My guess is that they [suspended Robertson] on the basis of a morality clause,” one entertainment attorney told TheWrap on Wednesday. “Once you sign a reality show contract, they own you.” <<

And you have ---- what? Robertson's contract? No.
Scattershot ad hominem?

Yeah. Run with that one.

tick .... tick... tick....

 

[Edgetho]

Unsurprisingly, the Daily Mail has lied to you again.

Here's the Entertainment Tonight article that they're claiming is their source:
'Duck Dynasty': New episodes will include Phil | Inside TV | EW.com

Notice there's nothing about "filming" in January.

"Regardless of the current controversy and behind-the-scenes tension, A&E has every intention of keeping Phil Robertson on the air."

"A source close to the situation confirmed that when the network resumes airing new episodes of Duck Dynasty starting Jan. 15 footage featuring the Robertson patriarch will indeed remain intact..."

“There’s no negotiation to have; we’re doing the show,” said an insider close to the situation."

They're going to resume like normal Jan 15.

'Duck Dynasty': New episodes will include Phil | Inside TV | EW.com

Yep. Phill has already been recorded, and A&E has an obligation...do you realize what will happen? MORE that have never seen it, will be watching. What a boon...a ratings Bonanza coup A&E will have?

I understand over a million people have pledged to boycott A&E.

They're gonna get hurt over this. Big time.

I see pressure being brought to bear on advertisers as well.

Did you see what Cracker Barrel did? Took them about three days to figure out they fucked up.

I wonder how long it will take A&E to figure out who it is exactly that watches DD

Like "Duck Dynasty" is real popular in New Yawk Shitty?

Yeah, right.

I've never seen it. Just not interested.

To me, Duck tastes like Tuna on a stick. Unless it's farm-raised. If it's wild? No thanks.

 

[Pogo]

Which will effect the Families decision on a new contract and that is also part of the discussion.

Robertson was placed on "indefinite" suspension from the show mid-week. The Duck Dynasty cast has responded to the controversy, expressing disappointment and implying that the show won't go on without their patriarch. - See more at: Duck Dynasty: Phil Robertson Suspended Because of Gay A&E Employees - The Hollywood Gossip

No, it is not.

Neither TV Producers nor Talent act on what may or may not be in a future contract. They act on the present one. If we acted on future hypotheticals, contracts would mean nothing.

That is not what I'm saying Pogo.
If A&E does not reinstate Phil in future productions that are left in this contract, the Family are implying that they will not make a new contract for any future shows.

That's all speculation about the future. People can imply anything they want; it doesn't affect the instant case. Again, the TV company would act within the current contract. What they do in the future, whether affected by any of this or not, will be determined when they get to that point. It's not relevant now. Especially third party speculation about what some party "implies".

 

[Pogo]

"Regardless of the current controversy and behind-the-scenes tension, A&E has every intention of keeping Phil Robertson on the air."

"A source close to the situation confirmed that when the network resumes airing new episodes of Duck Dynasty starting Jan. 15 footage featuring the Robertson patriarch will indeed remain intact..."

&#8220;There&#8217;s no negotiation to have; we&#8217;re doing the show,&#8221; said an insider close to the situation."

They're going to resume like normal Jan 15.

'Duck Dynasty': New episodes will include Phil | Inside TV | EW.com

Yep. Phill has already been recorded, and A&E has an obligation...do you realize what will happen? MORE that have never seen it, will be watching. What a boon...a ratings Bonanza coup A&E will have?

I understand over a million people have pledged to boycott A&E.

They're gonna get hurt over this. Big time.

I see pressure being brought to bear on advertisers as well.

Did you see what Cracker Barrel did? Took them about three days to figure out they fucked up.

I wonder how long it will take A&E to figure out who it is exactly that watches DD

Like "Duck Dynasty" is real popular in New Yawk Shitty?

Yeah, right.

I've never seen it. Just not interested.

To me, Duck tastes like Tuna on a stick. Unless it's farm-raised. If it's wild? No thanks.

"Media boycotts" never work. As long as the media in question is disseminated to the general public (which this unfortunately is), anyone is free to watch. The simple psychology is that if X% of regular viewers abstain from the show, 2X or 3X or 5X new viewers will be drawn in if only to find out what the controversy's all about, more than making up for them.

That is, if they abstain, which is doubtful. Talk is cheap. As cheap as this drivel of a TV show.

None of which really matters - the show is paid for by its advertisers, and those ad rates are set according to what kind of audience the ad buyer can expect. Boycotters cannot bring down a TV show unless they find a way to keep viewers from watching it. Ad buyers and ratings watchers know this truism well, trust me. Since there's literally no such thing as bad publicity, bet the house the ad rates for DD just went up -- not down.

 

[Edgetho]

 

[Edgetho]

Yep. Phill has already been recorded, and A&E has an obligation...do you realize what will happen? MORE that have never seen it, will be watching. What a boon...a ratings Bonanza coup A&E will have?

I understand over a million people have pledged to boycott A&E.

They're gonna get hurt over this. Big time.

I see pressure being brought to bear on advertisers as well.

Did you see what Cracker Barrel did? Took them about three days to figure out they fucked up.

I wonder how long it will take A&E to figure out who it is exactly that watches DD

Like "Duck Dynasty" is real popular in New Yawk Shitty?

Yeah, right.

I've never seen it. Just not interested.

To me, Duck tastes like Tuna on a stick. Unless it's farm-raised. If it's wild? No thanks.

"Media boycotts" never work. As long as the media in question is disseminated to the general public (which this unfortunately is), anyone is free to watch. The simple psychology is that if X% of regular viewers abstain from the show, 2X or 3X or 5X new viewers will be drawn in if only to find out what the controversy's all about, more than making up for them.

That is, if they abstain, which is doubtful. Talk is cheap.

None of which really matters - the show is paid for by its advertisers, and those ad rates are set according to what kind of audience the ad buyer can expect. Boycotters cannot bring down a TV show unless they find a way to keep viewers from watching it. Ad buyers and ratings watchers know this truism well, trust me. Since there's literally no such thing as bad publicity, bet the house the ad rates for DD just went up -- not down.

We're not talking about M.A.S.H here. While this is a popular show, from what I understand, it has a targeted market.

And that market is made up of people that think just like Phil Robertson does.

Like I said, I've never seen the first episode. And I also think judging gays so harshly is wrong.

But the fact is, a lot of people that watch that show have the same, exact attitudes towards sex that PR does.

Advertisers target market as well. I doubt you see a lot of Ads for Mercedes on the show. Maybe a few for tractors, but not too many for expensive perfumes or designer clothing.

Then there's the local markets....

A&E screwed the pooch. And they're gonna pay.

The DD gang? They're gonna make out like bandits. Another Network will snap them up for a big, fat contract in a heartbeat if they can. If A&E lets them out of their last year.

Which is what I think happens to avoid a lawsuit.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I could see it if Phil R went out and started screaming about how he hated fags and thought they were all scumbags etc, etc.

But what he did was talk about SIN and SINNERS. There was no hate in his heart or in his words.

The problem with you people is that any speech that doesn't fall within the narrow guidelines you demand OF OTHERS is righteously condemned and the people who spoke it along with it.

But let a group with the right 'status' make fun of gays, and..Hey! It's all just in fun, right?

Saturday Night Live
Christmas Past
Watch Saturday Night Live: Christmas Past online | Free | Hulu

You might think of yourself as a good individual, but you're being controlled by some seriously evil people.

Of course, if you admit it, then you have to admit that you've been wrong your entire life.

Not an easy thing to do. Takes a lot of guts and that's one major reason that people don't change.

Edge, you're missing another very important point. It's going completely over your head.

I read the interview, and really don't think it was that bad or that shocking. It's was just what you'd expect from someone who was a pretty outspoken Christian. However, what happened is that a whole shitload of controversy was drummed up about it. Yes, a lot of his comments were twisted and blown out of proportion but at the end of the day the interview completely blew up.

The fervor was unpredictable, scandalous, and could be viewed as damaging to the A&E brand. Again, A&E has a right to protect itself from this by distancing itself from Phil by suspending him.

This is called business, Edge. Hundreds of millions of dollars are on the line and they need to do what's right for the network. If A&E did nothing they ran the risk of losing a big chunk of its viewers who may view the network as "anti-gay" etc.

What I am not doing is denouncing Phil, or denouncing Christians, or denouncing people who dislike gays.

I'm am simply saying that a company has a right to defend itself.

No, they don't. They hired him because of his outspoken manner, and they hired him knowing (because hey, he wrote books and already had produced shows) exactly what his views were.

To suddenly decide that he isn't allowed to voice his Christian views...that's discrimination. They know it too. That's why he's not really fired, and why they are continuing and really just want the whole thing to go away.

One of the higher ups at A&E got a hair crossways, and their decision was vetoed. They were probably fired.

He's not a christian and no one has said he can't spew his stupidity and hate. And NO, there was no denial of First Amendment rights. The First Amendment never even entered into this, except for idiots like you and the op who STILL have not actually read it.

Hell, you disgusting rw's, who have proven you have NO morals and NO ethics, haven't even spoken out against the old fart's preaching about molesting children.

At the beginning of this ASSSinine dust up, I said that A&E had undoubtedly had a little phone conference with the various atty's where they all decided to let the ignrernt redneck fans throw their shit at the walls for a few days and then let it all blow over.

And, next week, you'll all get all hysterical over yet another nonexistent scandal.

Its a wonder you ever come out from under your bed.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

A&E folded like a cheap suit.

Cuz they know they can't penalize him for his faith.

Particularly when they hired him KNOWING this was a huge part of his schtick.

His schtick is being a dumber than shit redneck.

People aren't laughing WITH him, they are laughing AT him.

I don't get that about these really stupid reality shows. Its like they really don't know that intelligent people are laughing at them. Even the DD's are laughing at the fools who fell for this. Like I've said, my bet is that the rw's are out there buying more Made In China shit from WalMart.

Note to kg - no one penalized him for his faith.

 

[The T]

"Regardless of the current controversy and behind-the-scenes tension, A&E has every intention of keeping Phil Robertson on the air."

"A source close to the situation confirmed that when the network resumes airing new episodes of Duck Dynasty starting Jan. 15 footage featuring the Robertson patriarch will indeed remain intact..."

“There’s no negotiation to have; we’re doing the show,” said an insider close to the situation."

They're going to resume like normal Jan 15.

'Duck Dynasty': New episodes will include Phil | Inside TV | EW.com

Yep. Phill has already been recorded, and A&E has an obligation...do you realize what will happen? MORE that have never seen it, will be watching. What a boon...a ratings Bonanza coup A&E will have?

I understand over a million people have pledged to boycott A&E.

They're gonna get hurt over this. Big time.

I see pressure being brought to bear on advertisers as well.

Did you see what Cracker Barrel did? Took them about three days to figure out they fucked up.

I wonder how long it will take A&E to figure out who it is exactly that watches DD

Like "Duck Dynasty" is real popular in New Yawk Shitty?

Yeah, right.

I've never seen it. Just not interested.

To me, Duck tastes like Tuna on a stick. Unless it's farm-raised. If it's wild? No thanks.

Aquired taste.

 

[Pogo]

I understand over a million people have pledged to boycott A&E.

They're gonna get hurt over this. Big time.

I see pressure being brought to bear on advertisers as well.

Did you see what Cracker Barrel did? Took them about three days to figure out they fucked up.

I wonder how long it will take A&E to figure out who it is exactly that watches DD

Like "Duck Dynasty" is real popular in New Yawk Shitty?

Yeah, right.

I've never seen it. Just not interested.

To me, Duck tastes like Tuna on a stick. Unless it's farm-raised. If it's wild? No thanks.

"Media boycotts" never work. As long as the media in question is disseminated to the general public (which this unfortunately is), anyone is free to watch. The simple psychology is that if X% of regular viewers abstain from the show, 2X or 3X or 5X new viewers will be drawn in if only to find out what the controversy's all about, more than making up for them.

That is, if they abstain, which is doubtful. Talk is cheap.

None of which really matters - the show is paid for by its advertisers, and those ad rates are set according to what kind of audience the ad buyer can expect. Boycotters cannot bring down a TV show unless they find a way to keep viewers from watching it. Ad buyers and ratings watchers know this truism well, trust me. Since there's literally no such thing as bad publicity, bet the house the ad rates for DD just went up -- not down.

We're not talking about M.A.S.H here. While this is a popular show, from what I understand, it has a targeted market.

And that market is made up of people that think just like Phil Robertson does.

Like I said, I've never seen the first episode. And I also think judging gays so harshly is wrong.

But the fact is, a lot of people that watch that show have the same, exact attitudes towards sex that PR does.

Advertisers target market as well. I doubt you see a lot of Ads for Mercedes on the show. Maybe a few for tractors, but not too many for expensive perfumes or designer clothing.

Then there's the local markets....

A&E screwed the pooch. And they're gonna pay.

The DD gang? They're gonna make out like bandits. Another Network will snap them up for a big, fat contract in a heartbeat if they can. If A&E lets them out of their last year.

Which is what I think happens to avoid a lawsuit.

Targeted market or not, the target just got a lot bigger from all this buzz, regardless whether that buzz is warranted. Buzz creates ratings. Whatever you're wishing for in terms of TV failures, your perpetuation of the buzz is feeding the opposite effect.

And there is no "avoid a lawsuit" dance. I've defied you since yesterday to come up with a legal basis for a lawsuit, and you've got ... crickets.

Life in the comic books.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Edge, you're missing another very important point. It's going completely over your head.

I read the interview, and really don't think it was that bad or that shocking. It's was just what you'd expect from someone who was a pretty outspoken Christian. However, what happened is that a whole shitload of controversy was drummed up about it. Yes, a lot of his comments were twisted and blown out of proportion but at the end of the day the interview completely blew up.

The fervor was unpredictable, scandalous, and could be viewed as damaging to the A&E brand. Again, A&E has a right to protect itself from this by distancing itself from Phil by suspending him.

This is called business, Edge. Hundreds of millions of dollars are on the line and they need to do what's right for the network. If A&E did nothing they ran the risk of losing a big chunk of its viewers who may view the network as "anti-gay" etc.

What I am not doing is denouncing Phil, or denouncing Christians, or denouncing people who dislike gays.

I'm am simply saying that a company has a right to defend itself.

No, they don't. They hired him because of his outspoken manner, and they hired him knowing (because hey, he wrote books and already had produced shows) exactly what his views were.

To suddenly decide that he isn't allowed to voice his Christian views...that's discrimination. They know it too. That's why he's not really fired, and why they are continuing and really just want the whole thing to go away.

One of the higher ups at A&E got a hair crossways, and their decision was vetoed. They were probably fired.

And while we're at it, I didn't realize talking about ******* or not ******* someone's ass was a "Christian" viewpoint. Quit defending this as "religious commentary".

It's not ******* religious commentary. Don't recall Jesus ever describing what he thought of men's asses and why it's "gross" to **** them. Jesus was interested in more important issues.

Phil's comments were lewd and this was one of the reasons this thing blew up. He didn't simply say "I disagree with gay marriage or gay people", he was straight up talking about assholes and vaginas.

Did Jesus to his followers to molest children?

 

[koshergrl]

You mean people like you?

Earth to luddly..you aren't one of the really intelligent people. When you laugh, it's generally inappropriate, mean spirited cackling. You miss the real jokes, and you laugh at things that aren't funny.

Thank goodness, the majority of American citizens aren't like that. The majority of American citizens appreciate other American citizens who embrace American values, and are great examples of the success that those values engender.

You are an extremist yahoo. The majority isn't laughing at these guys. They love them because they know people, and admire people, just like them. Because they are admirable, and they are successful. You are the weakest link...not the Robertsons. We laugh at you.