Memo to conservatives: The First Amendment does not entitle you to a reality TV show

[dinar_stud]

Memo to conservatives: The First Amendment does not entitle you to a reality TV show

 

The right to free speech isn’t just a fundamental American value; it’s enshrined in the first amendment to our constitution. If only the most loud-mouthed among us actually understood what it says. Here’s what the First Amendment offers: you can say, write or publish pretty much whatever you want, no matter how offensive (with a few exceptions), and the government can’t step in and censor you or put you in jail. Here’s what the first amendment doesn’t do: allow you to say, write or publish whatever you want, no matter how offensive, and also entitle you to a giant pay check from your starring role on a cable reality TV show.

 

 

 

This isn’t exactly Harvard-level legal theory, but many Republicans, Christian organizations and garden-variety tweeters enjoy spouting off about their love of freedom and the Constitution while remaining disturbingly unaware of what the Bill of Rights actually says and means. The right-wing passion for a set of ideals they claim to revere – but remain ignorant of – is not new, but it’s news again this week. They’re up in arms at the suspension of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson for a series of homophobic and bigoted remarks he made to GQ magazine. Professional consequences for bigoted comments, they say, violate the constitutional right to free speech.

 

 

Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal said:

 

Phil Robertson and his family are great citizens of the State of Louisiana. The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with. I don’t agree with quite a bit of stuff I read in magazine interviews or see on TV. In fact, come to think of it, I find a good bit of it offensive. But I also acknowledge that this is a free country and everyone is entitled to express their views.

 

 

Yes, everyone is entitled to express his or her views. Not everyone is entitled to keep their jobs, though, if they decide to express views that are entirely odious and potentially costly to their employer. Certainly the founders didn’t mean “free country” as short-hand for “free to be on the reality show of your choice.”

 

 

Jindal’s argument that liberals are tolerant of everything except intolerance is Tweedle Dumb to the similarly vapid adage “everyone is entitled to their opinion”. Everyone has opinions; but why, exactly, are all opinions deserving of the same deference and respect? Especially when they come from people who can’t tell the difference between promoting tolerance and respect of all human beings, and objecting when someone makes a comment that demonizes an already marginalized group?

 

 

This isn’t to say that A&E is entirely innocent here. They created a show based around a group of people who are obvious loose canons with questionable viewpoints. Then they feign shock when those same loose canons express their questionable viewpoints in the media. Crass and mercenary? Absolutely. But violating constitutional precepts? Not even close.

 

 

Not one to be outdone when it comes to publicly idiocy, Sarah Palin jumped in with her creative interpretation of the first amendment. She wrote on Facebook:

 

 

Free speech is an endangered species. Those “intolerants” hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us.

 

She would know. By that logic, Palin herself was censored by the American public of “intolerants” when we declined to elect her vice president of the United States, leaving her with only a book deal, speaking engagements and, yes, a reality show to pay the bills.

 

 

Robertson’s statements were bigoted by any reasonable definition, not just in the opinion of us “hatin’ intolerants”. The homophobia has been getting the most press, but don’t worry, there’s racism as well. When it comes to *** people, Robertson said:

 

 

It seems like, to me, a ****** – as a man – would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: it’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.

 

 

It’s probably not news to most folks that as a straight man, Roberts is likely to be more interested in a woman’s ****** than a man’s anus. How another man’s interest in other men’s underwear-parts impacts Roberts is beyond me. But apparently it makes other men have more sex with women and also an animal here or there, because sin:

 

 

Starts with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.

 

 

Start with a male anus, and next thing you know, you’re screwing every woman on the block, and a few particularly attractive neighborhood goats. No one said bigotry was logical. Robertson continued:

 

 

Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers – they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.

 

 

Perhaps he should take it as a blessing, then, that his personal greed will no longer be enabled by A&E. Robertson went on to discuss the cotton-field musicals of happy black people in the Jim Crow south:

 

 

I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field … they’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, “I tell you what: these doggone white people” – not a word! Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.

 

 

Actually, singing the blues is exactly what a lot of black people were doing in the pre-Civil Rights era South, but facts aren’t exactly Robertson’s strong suit. Neither, you will be shocked to learn, is his understanding of geopolitical history:

 

 

All you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s 80 years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups.

 

 

If you want to talk about groups that are known for their propensity for killing, you might want to start with Robertson’s home state of Louisiana, which boasts the highest murder rate in the country. And Robertson’s assertions about where Jesus is and isn’t allowed are embarrassingly wrong. But not any more wrong than Bobby Jindal, who – as an elected executive official – one would expect to have at least a tenuous grasp of the bill of rights. Jindal said:

 

 

I remember when TV networks believed in the first Amendment. It is a messed-up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended.

 

 

In what golden age of television did networks believe in the first amendment, apparently letting people say whatever they wanted regardless of their network affiliation? Because last time I checked, the major networks won’t even broadcast the word “blowjob” in primetime, let alone open their airways to anything and everything (can you even say “anus” on TV?).

 

 

The right to freely speak your mind without government interference is crucial. But few of us are permitted in the course of our employment to say whatever we want without consequence from our employer. Being on a reality show is Robertson’s job. He disgraced his employer and made comments so offensive that A&E would almost surely have seen an audience and advertiser backlash had they not reacted swiftly. Declining to continue filming someone for a reality television show after they let loose a series of asinine and bigoted remarks in a magazine interview is not “discrimination”, no matter how much Christian organizations insist it is. It is not an indication that A&E refuses to treat faith-based consumers’ views “with equality and respect”. It does not mean A&E “excludes the views of faith-driven consumers and effectively censors a legitimate viewpoint held by the majority of Americans”.

 

 

Unless by not featuring me on a reality show, A&E is censoring me and my legitimately-held viewpoints. Where’s Bobby Jindal when I need him?

 

 

These are the same folks, by the way, who cry foul, demand apologies and insist companies pull their ads from major networks whenever Britney Spears moves her butt in a way that stirs their shorts. Gyrating hips? Time for a sex panic. A tirade of ignorance about *** people, African-Americans, Muslims, Shintos and vast swaths of Eastern and Central Europe? Just another day in a GOP where the leading argument against Obamacare this week is, “That pajama dude in the ad looks like a ***“.

 

 

Robertson is still entitled to say whatever he wants to GQ, Bobby Jindal or anyone else who will listen. He is entitled to do so without fearing imprisonment, arrest, government censure or any other punishment from the police or the courts. Americans are fortunate to live in a country that offers us such openness. Robertson, like any of us, is entitled to the full enjoyment of that freedom.

 

 

What he’s not entitled to is a reality show.

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2013 by dinar_stud

[MyLadiesDaddy]

You do have the ability to read and comprehend?

Somehow I don't think you're grasping the full context of this subject.

[dinar_stud]

You do have the ability to read and comprehend?

Somehow I don't think you're grasping the full context of this subject.

 

It is your roght to believe as you want to, and yet it still does not entitle you to a TV show.

 

 

Its nice to see how you ignore the 1st ammendment that is explained in the article to attack me.

Edited December 20, 2013 by dinar_stud

[Big Newby]

Memo to conservatives: The First Amendment does not entitle you to a reality TV show

 

The right to free speech isn’t just a fundamental American value; it’s enshrined in the first amendment to our constitution. If only the most loud-mouthed among us actually understood what it says. Here’s what the First Amendment offers: you can say, write or publish pretty much whatever you want, no matter how offensive (with a few exceptions), and the government can’t step in and censor you or put you in jail. Here’s what the first amendment doesn’t do: allow you to say, write or publish whatever you want, no matter how offensive, and also entitle you to a giant pay check from your starring role on a cable reality TV show.

 

 

 

This isn’t exactly Harvard-level legal theory, but many Republicans, Christian organizations and garden-variety tweeters enjoy spouting off about their love of freedom and the Constitution while remaining disturbingly unaware of what the Bill of Rights actually says and means. The right-wing passion for a set of ideals they claim to revere – but remain ignorant of – is not new, but it’s news again this week. They’re up in arms at the suspension of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson for a series of homophobic and bigoted remarks he made to GQ magazine. Professional consequences for bigoted comments, they say, violate the constitutional right to free speech.

 

 

Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal said:

 

Phil Robertson and his family are great citizens of the State of Louisiana. The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with. I don’t agree with quite a bit of stuff I read in magazine interviews or see on TV. In fact, come to think of it, I find a good bit of it offensive. But I also acknowledge that this is a free country and everyone is entitled to express their views.

 

 

Yes, everyone is entitled to express his or her views. Not everyone is entitled to keep their jobs, though, if they decide to express views that are entirely odious and potentially costly to their employer. Certainly the founders didn’t mean “free country” as short-hand for “free to be on the reality show of your choice.”

 

 

Jindal’s argument that liberals are tolerant of everything except intolerance is Tweedle Dumb to the similarly vapid adage “everyone is entitled to their opinion”. Everyone has opinions; but why, exactly, are all opinions deserving of the same deference and respect? Especially when they come from people who can’t tell the difference between promoting tolerance and respect of all human beings, and objecting when someone makes a comment that demonizes an already marginalized group?

 

 

This isn’t to say that A&E is entirely innocent here. They created a show based around a group of people who are obvious loose canons with questionable viewpoints. Then they feign shock when those same loose canons express their questionable viewpoints in the media. Crass and mercenary? Absolutely. But violating constitutional precepts? Not even close.

 

 

Not one to be outdone when it comes to publicly idiocy, Sarah Palin jumped in with her creative interpretation of the first amendment. She wrote on Facebook:

 

 

Free speech is an endangered species. Those “intolerants” hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us.

 

She would know. By that logic, Palin herself was censored by the American public of “intolerants” when we declined to elect her vice president of the United States, leaving her with only a book deal, speaking engagements and, yes, a reality show to pay the bills.

 

 

Robertson’s statements were bigoted by any reasonable definition, not just in the opinion of us “hatin’ intolerants”. The homophobia has been getting the most press, but don’t worry, there’s racism as well. When it comes to *** people, Robertson said:

 

 

It seems like, to me, a ****** – as a man – would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: it’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.

 

 

It’s probably not news to most folks that as a straight man, Roberts is likely to be more interested in a woman’s ****** than a man’s anus. How another man’s interest in other men’s underwear-parts impacts Roberts is beyond me. But apparently it makes other men have more sex with women and also an animal here or there, because sin:

 

 

Starts with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.

 

 

Start with a male anus, and next thing you know, you’re screwing every woman on the block, and a few particularly attractive neighborhood goats. No one said bigotry was logical. Robertson continued:

 

 

Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers – they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.

 

 

Perhaps he should take it as a blessing, then, that his personal greed will no longer be enabled by A&E. Robertson went on to discuss the cotton-field musicals of happy black people in the Jim Crow south:

 

 

I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field … they’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, “I tell you what: these doggone white people” – not a word! Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.

 

 

Actually, singing the blues is exactly what a lot of black people were doing in the pre-Civil Rights era South, but facts aren’t exactly Robertson’s strong suit. Neither, you will be shocked to learn, is his understanding of geopolitical history:

 

 

All you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s 80 years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups.

 

 

If you want to talk about groups that are known for their propensity for killing, you might want to start with Robertson’s home state of Louisiana, which boasts the highest murder rate in the country. And Robertson’s assertions about where Jesus is and isn’t allowed are embarrassingly wrong. But not any more wrong than Bobby Jindal, who – as an elected executive official – one would expect to have at least a tenuous grasp of the bill of rights. Jindal said:

 

 

I remember when TV networks believed in the first Amendment. It is a messed-up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended.

 

 

In what golden age of television did networks believe in the first amendment, apparently letting people say whatever they wanted regardless of their network affiliation? Because last time I checked, the major networks won’t even broadcast the word “blowjob” in primetime, let alone open their airways to anything and everything (can you even say “anus” on TV?).

 

 

The right to freely speak your mind without government interference is crucial. But few of us are permitted in the course of our employment to say whatever we want without consequence from our employer. Being on a reality show is Robertson’s job. He disgraced his employer and made comments so offensive that A&E would almost surely have seen an audience and advertiser backlash had they not reacted swiftly. Declining to continue filming someone for a reality television show after they let loose a series of asinine and bigoted remarks in a magazine interview is not “discrimination”, no matter how much Christian organizations insist it is. It is not an indication that A&E refuses to treat faith-based consumers’ views “with equality and respect”. It does not mean A&E “excludes the views of faith-driven consumers and effectively censors a legitimate viewpoint held by the majority of Americans”.

 

 

Unless by not featuring me on a reality show, A&E is censoring me and my legitimately-held viewpoints. Where’s Bobby Jindal when I need him?

 

 

These are the same folks, by the way, who cry foul, demand apologies and insist companies pull their ads from major networks whenever Britney Spears moves her butt in a way that stirs their shorts. Gyrating hips? Time for a sex panic. A tirade of ignorance about *** people, African-Americans, Muslims, Shintos and vast swaths of Eastern and Central Europe? Just another day in a GOP where the leading argument against Obamacare this week is, “That pajama dude in the ad looks like a ***“.

 

 

Robertson is still entitled to say whatever he wants to GQ, Bobby Jindal or anyone else who will listen. He is entitled to do so without fearing imprisonment, arrest, government censure or any other punishment from the police or the courts. Americans are fortunate to live in a country that offers us such openness. Robertson, like any of us, is entitled to the full enjoyment of that freedom.

 

 

What he’s not entitled to is a reality show.

 

 

 

However, he IS entitled to the rights and privileges that come from his job.  He is a Louisiana resident and therefore terms of his employment are governed by Louisiana employment law.  And his "temporary" employment interruption was due to his employer's disdain for what he stately publicly, NOT due to job performance.  His employer has suspended him from employment because of his exercise of his Constitutional right to free speech.

 

Surely you, Stud, can make that connection.

 

And, you too have the right to make the personal insults you made in your post above.  I hope your boss doesn't disagree with your making them and terminate you FOR making them.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Big Newby

[new york kevin]

D.S. that is b.s.   On the one hand you say Mr. Robertson has the constitutional right to say what he wishes and the government cannot step in to censor him. Thats the law, thats the precident. When a employer fires you as the direct result of your expressed religious beliefs, thats religious discrimination. Discrimination is not allowed in this country by law. Help me out here, what does that pamphlet from the EOE folks say about this subject. ... on religious grounds, sexual orientation etc??? Well insert that here.

 

Just say: NO TO THE DEOPHOBES. Deophobia = The fear of God and what He teaches.

[MyLadiesDaddy]

It is your roght to believe as you want to, and yet it still does not entitle you to a TV show.  Its nice to see how you ignore the 1st ammendment that is explained in the article to attack me.

I have not attacked you at all. My first question seems a legitimate one, especially

Considering yours and the authors interpretation of the first amendment.

And by presenting such (and further accusing me of attacking you) shows clearly

That you're not grasping the meaning of this debate at all.

Everyone has a right to present their own points of view without fear of any ramifications

Of undue harm. REGARDLESS of their view.

[gymrat76541]

WOW

 

I have been waiting so long for someone to draw a line in sand.

 

The LBGT community have been paying off everyone with their hands out (Local/State/Federal politicians) and getting their LBGT members/friends in Hollywood and the media to push their agenda.

 

Our weak, greedy & do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do religious leadership have sat back and watched the attack on our fundimental beliefs and their only concern is trying to figure out how they can get some of that LBGT money too.

 

The LBGT gang has brainwashed the media into believing that anyone who speaks with opposing view against the LBGT gang is bashing them. It is almost a "hate" crime to say something against being G A Y.

 

They are a serious minority but like any minority in America they have discovered that if you throw enough money at the problem; you can get your own set of laws passed & changes that are to your benefit.

 

It is PASS DUE for our so called religious leaders to publicly speak out and let our represenatives at all levels of local/state/federal government know that the majority of people in America are God fearing & demand a return to our founding father's fundimental beliefs and to stop catering to the minority/put money in your pockets extremist who want to change America into God knows what.

 

[dog53]

Memo to conservatives: The First Amendment does not entitle you to a reality TV show

 

The right to free speech isn’t just a fundamental American value; it’s enshrined in the first amendment to our constitution. If only the most loud-mouthed among us actually understood what it says. Here’s what the First Amendment offers: you can say, write or publish pretty much whatever you want, no matter how offensive (with a few exceptions), and the government can’t step in and censor you or put you in jail. Here’s what the first amendment doesn’t do: allow you to say, write or publish whatever you want, no matter how offensive, and also entitle you to a giant pay check from your starring role on a cable reality TV show.

 

 

 

This isn’t exactly Harvard-level legal theory, but many Republicans, Christian organizations and garden-variety tweeters enjoy spouting off about their love of freedom and the Constitution while remaining disturbingly unaware of what the Bill of Rights actually says and means. The right-wing passion for a set of ideals they claim to revere – but remain ignorant of – is not new, but it’s news again this week. They’re up in arms at the suspension of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson for a series of homophobic and bigoted remarks he made to GQ magazine. Professional consequences for bigoted comments, they say, violate the constitutional right to free speech.

 

 

Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal said:

 

Phil Robertson and his family are great citizens of the State of Louisiana. The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with. I don’t agree with quite a bit of stuff I read in magazine interviews or see on TV. In fact, come to think of it, I find a good bit of it offensive. But I also acknowledge that this is a free country and everyone is entitled to express their views.

 

 

Yes, everyone is entitled to express his or her views. Not everyone is entitled to keep their jobs, though, if they decide to express views that are entirely odious and potentially costly to their employer. Certainly the founders didn’t mean “free country” as short-hand for “free to be on the reality show of your choice.”

 

 

Jindal’s argument that liberals are tolerant of everything except intolerance is Tweedle Dumb to the similarly vapid adage “everyone is entitled to their opinion”. Everyone has opinions; but why, exactly, are all opinions deserving of the same deference and respect? Especially when they come from people who can’t tell the difference between promoting tolerance and respect of all human beings, and objecting when someone makes a comment that demonizes an already marginalized group?

 

 

This isn’t to say that A&E is entirely innocent here. They created a show based around a group of people who are obvious loose canons with questionable viewpoints. Then they feign shock when those same loose canons express their questionable viewpoints in the media. Crass and mercenary? Absolutely. But violating constitutional precepts? Not even close.

 

 

Not one to be outdone when it comes to publicly idiocy, Sarah Palin jumped in with her creative interpretation of the first amendment. She wrote on Facebook:

 

 

Free speech is an endangered species. Those “intolerants” hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us.

 

She would know. By that logic, Palin herself was censored by the American public of “intolerants” when we declined to elect her vice president of the United States, leaving her with only a book deal, speaking engagements and, yes, a reality show to pay the bills.

 

 

Robertson’s statements were bigoted by any reasonable definition, not just in the opinion of us “hatin’ intolerants”. The homophobia has been getting the most press, but don’t worry, there’s racism as well. When it comes to *** people, Robertson said:

 

 

It seems like, to me, a ****** – as a man – would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: it’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.

 

 

It’s probably not news to most folks that as a straight man, Roberts is likely to be more interested in a woman’s ****** than a man’s anus. How another man’s interest in other men’s underwear-parts impacts Roberts is beyond me. But apparently it makes other men have more sex with women and also an animal here or there, because sin:

 

 

Starts with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.

 

 

Start with a male anus, and next thing you know, you’re screwing every woman on the block, and a few particularly attractive neighborhood goats. No one said bigotry was logical. Robertson continued:

 

 

Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers – they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.

 

 

Perhaps he should take it as a blessing, then, that his personal greed will no longer be enabled by A&E. Robertson went on to discuss the cotton-field musicals of happy black people in the Jim Crow south:

 

 

I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field … they’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, “I tell you what: these doggone white people” – not a word! Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.

 

 

Actually, singing the blues is exactly what a lot of black people were doing in the pre-Civil Rights era South, but facts aren’t exactly Robertson’s strong suit. Neither, you will be shocked to learn, is his understanding of geopolitical history:

 

 

All you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s 80 years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups.

 

 

If you want to talk about groups that are known for their propensity for killing, you might want to start with Robertson’s home state of Louisiana, which boasts the highest murder rate in the country. And Robertson’s assertions about where Jesus is and isn’t allowed are embarrassingly wrong. But not any more wrong than Bobby Jindal, who – as an elected executive official – one would expect to have at least a tenuous grasp of the bill of rights. Jindal said:

 

 

I remember when TV networks believed in the first Amendment. It is a messed-up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended.

 

 

In what golden age of television did networks believe in the first amendment, apparently letting people say whatever they wanted regardless of their network affiliation? Because last time I checked, the major networks won’t even broadcast the word “blowjob” in primetime, let alone open their airways to anything and everything (can you even say “anus” on TV?).

 

 

The right to freely speak your mind without government interference is crucial. But few of us are permitted in the course of our employment to say whatever we want without consequence from our employer. Being on a reality show is Robertson’s job. He disgraced his employer and made comments so offensive that A&E would almost surely have seen an audience and advertiser backlash had they not reacted swiftly. Declining to continue filming someone for a reality television show after they let loose a series of asinine and bigoted remarks in a magazine interview is not “discrimination”, no matter how much Christian organizations insist it is. It is not an indication that A&E refuses to treat faith-based consumers’ views “with equality and respect”. It does not mean A&E “excludes the views of faith-driven consumers and effectively censors a legitimate viewpoint held by the majority of Americans”.

 

 

Unless by not featuring me on a reality show, A&E is censoring me and my legitimately-held viewpoints. Where’s Bobby Jindal when I need him?

 

 

These are the same folks, by the way, who cry foul, demand apologies and insist companies pull their ads from major networks whenever Britney Spears moves her butt in a way that stirs their shorts. Gyrating hips? Time for a sex panic. A tirade of ignorance about *** people, African-Americans, Muslims, Shintos and vast swaths of Eastern and Central Europe? Just another day in a GOP where the leading argument against Obamacare this week is, “That pajama dude in the ad looks like a ***“.

 

 

Robertson is still entitled to say whatever he wants to GQ, Bobby Jindal or anyone else who will listen. He is entitled to do so without fearing imprisonment, arrest, government censure or any other punishment from the police or the courts. Americans are fortunate to live in a country that offers us such openness. Robertson, like any of us, is entitled to the full enjoyment of that freedom.

 

 

What he’s not entitled to is a reality show.

 

 

 

 

He didnt say anything but the truth . His truth is the truth of many.

I also dont understand why a man would prefer a anus to a womans *********.

Sorry dont get it.  It wouldnt suprise me if that family took the first offer they get from another network. 

Then let A&E lose more then half its viewers.   They robertson family will be laughing all the way to the bank.

and A&E will be crying the blue`s BUT at least they will still have the G** community to cry to. 

[dinar_stud]

He didnt say anything but the truth . His truth is the truth of many.

I also dont understand why a man would prefer a anus to a womans *********.

Sorry dont get it.  It wouldnt suprise me if that family took the first offer they get from another network. 

Then let A&E lose more then half its viewers.   They robertson family will be laughing all the way to the bank.

and A&E will be crying the blue`s BUT at least they will still have the G** community to cry to. 

 

 

Just because its the truth of many does not make it the truth, because many claiming to have the "truth" have been wrong in the past.

 

Let them go, I never watched to show, Spongebob Squarepants made more sense and he is a cartoon. They would have top change the whole concept of the show. it is their right unless they are in breach of contract.

[dinar_stud]

[MyLadiesDaddy]

Just because its the truth of many does not make it the truth, because many claiming to have the "truth" have been wrong in the past. Let them go, I never watched to show, Spongebob Squarepants made more sense and he is a cartoon. They would have top change the whole concept of the show. it is their right unless they are in breach of contract.

What he said was not the,"truth of many", but the truth of GOD ALMIGHTY.

So you say you don't believe in God. That's okay, he believes in you.

As for your PC poster, neither person should have been fired.

[MyLadiesDaddy]

Just because its the truth of many does not make it the truth, because many claiming to have the "truth" have been wrong in the past. Let them go, I never watched to show, Spongebob Squarepants made more sense and he is a cartoon. They would have top change the whole concept of the show. it is their right unless they are in breach of contract.

Try Veggie tales, you might learn something new.

[dog53]

Just because its the truth of many does not make it the truth, because many claiming to have the "truth" have been wrong in the past.

 

Let them go, I never watched to show, Spongebob Squarepants made more sense and he is a cartoon. They would have top change the whole concept of the show. it is their right unless they are in breach of contract.

 

 

Well if you have never watched the show how do you know spongebob makes more sense. 

There was a time when the majority ruled. Sense when has the g** community become the majority .

The truth has never been wrong. Ever.  It is a constant that cannot be changed like the moon and stars. 

if something is the truth it will remain the truth forever. BUT only if it is the truth. 

[Sage449]

DS - First Amendment:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

It no more gives the right for GLAD to bully A&E or the companies that support Robertson, than Robertson to have a TV show. Robertson does have the right, just as GLAD does, to express his opinion. I'm tired of the constitution being applied one sided - that it only applies to how the liberals decide to interpret it. I'm not homophobic - while I do not agree with that lifestyle, God has brought several into my life and are my friends. My job isn't to condemn them for their choice - I've enough of my own sins to cover, but my job is to pray for them for the best outcome for them.

 

I'm not aware nor do I understand that Robertson made his statement as a part of his job - A&E knew exactly what it was getting into by hiring the family - that they are a conservative Christian group. And to have A&E knuckle under to a minority group agrieves me and what it stands for against the first amendment. I have every right to believe and have opinions that differ from my company. I was hired to perform a service and have a right to my private life, thoughts and opinions. Just as Robertson does - regardless of the size of his audience in his personal life and to whom he has access.

[easy]

The problem l see is people using sexual preference for political gain. All this " coming out of the closet" stuff is bs.G*** and lgbt want equall rights and privliges and thats ok, but to try an push their beliefs on others is wrong. They get on soapboxes to push agenda and when anyone disagrees they call foul. People have a right to be with who they choose at the same time it should be kept at a personal level. What happens at home should stay at home. Bash away.

[darwinatridge]

Memo to conservatives: The First Amendment does not entitle you to a reality TV show

 

The right to free speech isn’t just a fundamental American value; it’s enshrined in the first amendment to our constitution. If only the most loud-mouthed among us actually understood what it says. Here’s what the First Amendment offers: you can say, write or publish pretty much whatever you want, no matter how offensive (with a few exceptions), and the government can’t step in and censor you or put you in jail. Here’s what the first amendment doesn’t do: allow you to say, write or publish whatever you want, no matter how offensive, and also entitle you to a giant pay check from your starring role on a cable reality TV show.

 

 

 

This isn’t exactly Harvard-level legal theory, but many Republicans, Christian organizations and garden-variety tweeters enjoy spouting off about their love of freedom and the Constitution while remaining disturbingly unaware of what the Bill of Rights actually says and means. The right-wing passion for a set of ideals they claim to revere – but remain ignorant of – is not new, but it’s news again this week. They’re up in arms at the suspension of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson for a series of homophobic and bigoted remarks he made to GQ magazine. Professional consequences for bigoted comments, they say, violate the constitutional right to free speech.

 

 

Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal said:

 

Phil Robertson and his family are great citizens of the State of Louisiana. The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with. I don’t agree with quite a bit of stuff I read in magazine interviews or see on TV. In fact, come to think of it, I find a good bit of it offensive. But I also acknowledge that this is a free country and everyone is entitled to express their views.

 

 

Yes, everyone is entitled to express his or her views. Not everyone is entitled to keep their jobs, though, if they decide to express views that are entirely odious and potentially costly to their employer. Certainly the founders didn’t mean “free country” as short-hand for “free to be on the reality show of your choice.”

 

 

Jindal’s argument that liberals are tolerant of everything except intolerance is Tweedle Dumb to the similarly vapid adage “everyone is entitled to their opinion”. Everyone has opinions; but why, exactly, are all opinions deserving of the same deference and respect? Especially when they come from people who can’t tell the difference between promoting tolerance and respect of all human beings, and objecting when someone makes a comment that demonizes an already marginalized group?

 

 

This isn’t to say that A&E is entirely innocent here. They created a show based around a group of people who are obvious loose canons with questionable viewpoints. Then they feign shock when those same loose canons express their questionable viewpoints in the media. Crass and mercenary? Absolutely. But violating constitutional precepts? Not even close.

 

 

Not one to be outdone when it comes to publicly idiocy, Sarah Palin jumped in with her creative interpretation of the first amendment. She wrote on Facebook:

 

 

Free speech is an endangered species. Those “intolerants” hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us.

 

She would know. By that logic, Palin herself was censored by the American public of “intolerants” when we declined to elect her vice president of the United States, leaving her with only a book deal, speaking engagements and, yes, a reality show to pay the bills.

 

 

Robertson’s statements were bigoted by any reasonable definition, not just in the opinion of us “hatin’ intolerants”. The homophobia has been getting the most press, but don’t worry, there’s racism as well. When it comes to *** people, Robertson said:

 

 

It seems like, to me, a ****** – as a man – would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: it’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.

 

 

It’s probably not news to most folks that as a straight man, Roberts is likely to be more interested in a woman’s ****** than a man’s anus. How another man’s interest in other men’s underwear-parts impacts Roberts is beyond me. But apparently it makes other men have more sex with women and also an animal here or there, because sin:

 

 

Starts with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.

 

 

Start with a male anus, and next thing you know, you’re screwing every woman on the block, and a few particularly attractive neighborhood goats. No one said bigotry was logical. Robertson continued:

 

 

Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers – they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.

 

 

Perhaps he should take it as a blessing, then, that his personal greed will no longer be enabled by A&E. Robertson went on to discuss the cotton-field musicals of happy black people in the Jim Crow south:

 

 

I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field … they’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, “I tell you what: these doggone white people” – not a word! Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.

 

 

Actually, singing the blues is exactly what a lot of black people were doing in the pre-Civil Rights era South, but facts aren’t exactly Robertson’s strong suit. Neither, you will be shocked to learn, is his understanding of geopolitical history:

 

 

All you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s 80 years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups.

 

 

If you want to talk about groups that are known for their propensity for killing, you might want to start with Robertson’s home state of Louisiana, which boasts the highest murder rate in the country. And Robertson’s assertions about where Jesus is and isn’t allowed are embarrassingly wrong. But not any more wrong than Bobby Jindal, who – as an elected executive official – one would expect to have at least a tenuous grasp of the bill of rights. Jindal said:

 

 

I remember when TV networks believed in the first Amendment. It is a messed-up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended.

 

 

In what golden age of television did networks believe in the first amendment, apparently letting people say whatever they wanted regardless of their network affiliation? Because last time I checked, the major networks won’t even broadcast the word “blowjob” in primetime, let alone open their airways to anything and everything (can you even say “anus” on TV?).

 

 

The right to freely speak your mind without government interference is crucial. But few of us are permitted in the course of our employment to say whatever we want without consequence from our employer. Being on a reality show is Robertson’s job. He disgraced his employer and made comments so offensive that A&E would almost surely have seen an audience and advertiser backlash had they not reacted swiftly. Declining to continue filming someone for a reality television show after they let loose a series of asinine and bigoted remarks in a magazine interview is not “discrimination”, no matter how much Christian organizations insist it is. It is not an indication that A&E refuses to treat faith-based consumers’ views “with equality and respect”. It does not mean A&E “excludes the views of faith-driven consumers and effectively censors a legitimate viewpoint held by the majority of Americans”.

 

 

Unless by not featuring me on a reality show, A&E is censoring me and my legitimately-held viewpoints. Where’s Bobby Jindal when I need him?

 

 

These are the same folks, by the way, who cry foul, demand apologies and insist companies pull their ads from major networks whenever Britney Spears moves her butt in a way that stirs their shorts. Gyrating hips? Time for a sex panic. A tirade of ignorance about *** people, African-Americans, Muslims, Shintos and vast swaths of Eastern and Central Europe? Just another day in a GOP where the leading argument against Obamacare this week is, “That pajama dude in the ad looks like a ***“.

 

 

Robertson is still entitled to say whatever he wants to GQ, Bobby Jindal or anyone else who will listen. He is entitled to do so without fearing imprisonment, arrest, government censure or any other punishment from the police or the courts. Americans are fortunate to live in a country that offers us such openness. Robertson, like any of us, is entitled to the full enjoyment of that freedom.

 

 

What he’s not entitled to is a reality show.

 

 

 

So what you are saying is that only leftwing nuts have the right to free speech. All that being said people take freedom of speech as a reason for not being responsible for what they are saying. Telling someone that the bible says something is a sin is not being irresponsible. Telling the whole world that you would shoot George Bush if he where there, as they did a few years ago when introducing Chuck Schumer is irresponsible. Typical of many on the left, they did not have a problem with that. They where just acting on their freedom of speech rights.

[darwinatridge]

WOW

 

I have been waiting so long for someone to draw a line in sand.

 

The LBGT community have been paying off everyone with their hands out (Local/State/Federal politicians) and getting their LBGT members/friends in Hollywood and the media to push their agenda.

 

Our weak, greedy & do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do religious leadership have sat back and watched the attack on our fundimental beliefs and their only concern is trying to figure out how they can get some of that LBGT money too.

 

The LBGT gang has brainwashed the media into believing that anyone who speaks with opposing view against the LBGT gang is bashing them. It is almost a "hate" crime to say something against being G A Y.

 

They are a serious minority but like any minority in America they have discovered that if you throw enough money at the problem; you can get your own set of laws passed & changes that are to your benefit.

 

It is PASS DUE for our so called religious leaders to publicly speak out and let our represenatives at all levels of local/state/federal government know that the majority of people in America are God fearing & demand a return to our founding father's fundimental beliefs and to stop catering to the minority/put money in your pockets extremist who want to change America into God knows what.

Lyndon Johnson drew the line in the sand many years ago when he pushed through House Resolution 235 in 1954. Which gave the government control of what non-profit organizations can say. He did that because churches where speaking out against his socialist views. That was a trap that all of these groups have been falling into ever since.

http://www.firebuilders.org/JAmCEC.htm

Edited December 21, 2013 by darwinatridge

[TPSprayduster]

Better to keep your thoughts to yourself, otherwise someone will spin and poof you are off the show.  They are set anyway so why complain about the show being cancelled?  Let me guess because they are conservatives they have no free speech well, when you have a contract with a Network they probably had something buried in the contract not to make controversial comments.  Oh well they can move the show to Fox.  No worries.  Only show of this duck dynasty i viewed is when they tried to remove a beehive in a swamp using a vaccum hooked up to a generator on the back of 4 wheeler all they got was Stung.  Don't worry duck dynasty folks, fans and supporter they will get another show.

[darwinatridge]

Let me ask this question. Should Jesus have just kept his mouth shut and gone to the cross without saying a word. He made it very plain that God loves sinners but hates sin. He was way more controversial than anyone before or after Him. He also made it plain that He wanted the Gospel preached throughout the world. The whole gospel. not just the parts that tickle peoples ears. Religion will tickle the ears of those that only want to hear the good things while closing their ears about the bad things. The gospel is about changing ones life. Religion is about tickling your fancy. That is why you take the whole bible because only taking the parts you like will not change your life. I have always said there is no such thing as an atheist, just a whole bunch of people who are mad because they cannot be gods of their own life. That does not stop them from trying though.

[TPSprayduster]

Let me ask this question. Should Jesus have just kept his mouth shut and gone to the cross without saying a word. He made it very plain that God loves sinners but hates sin. He was way more controversial than anyone before or after Him. He also made it plain that He wanted the Gospel preached throughout the world. The whole gospel. not just the parts that tickle peoples ears. Religion will tickle the ears of those that only want to hear the good things while closing their ears about the bad things. The gospel is about changing ones life. Religion is about tickling your fancy. That is why you take the whole bible because only taking the parts you like will not change your life. I have always said there is no such thing as an atheist, just a whole bunch of people who are mad because they cannot be gods of their own life. That does not stop them from trying though.

 

jesus was not a mulitimillioner nor did he make duck calls or have a tv show.  This is about making money.  Not about religion sir but tv ratings.

[darwinatridge]

jesus was not a mulitimillioner nor did he make duck calls or have a tv show.  This is about making money.  Not about religion sir but tv ratings.

I'm sorry but every statement made about this thing has been about religious beliefs all along.

[flopear]

jesus was not a mulitimillioner nor did he make duck calls or have a tv show. This is about making money. Not about religion sir but tv ratings.

It's funny how Phil Robertson quoted a scripture about idolaters, adulterers, drunkards, and ****. That won't be in heaven, but all anyone can point out is he's bashing ****. What about the drunkards, or idolaters, or adulterers. I guess he wasn't bashing them. I love the show, and if people can't handle the truth, then that's there problem. I think A&E will lose a lot. Phil on the other hand will reap Gods blessings for telling the truth.

[Markinsa]

jesus was not a mulitimillioner nor did he make duck calls or have a tv show.  This is about making money.  Not about religion sir but tv ratings.

 

What makes you think they aren't promoting the Gospel of Christ with this TV Show? It doesn't matter how or where God's Word is Spoken.

 

Isaiah 55:11 (NLT)

¹¹ It is the same with my word.

    I send it out, and it always produces fruit.

It will accomplish all I want it to,

    and it will prosper everywhere I send it.

 

If they save one soul from hell with this show, I would say they did a lot.

[chess]

I JUST READ THE FIRST AMENDMENT.......NO WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT YOU COULD NOT HAVE A REALITY TV SHOW!!!

[MyLadiesDaddy]

jesus was not a mulitimillioner nor did he make duck calls or have a tv show.  This is about making money.  Not about religion sir but tv ratings.

Naw he is just the one who created everything.