A&E is intolerant...

[bhsmte]

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, freedom from government interference in religion, freedom of assembly and a right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Free speech is universal, not limited to addressing the government. I do not have to check my beliefs at the door of my employer.

In short, there already is a law. It is called the Constitution. Actions contravening the directives of that document are automatically against the law.

You are wrong, freedom of speech is not absolute. When your speech causes damage to another, you are going beyond the bounds of the law.

What if this duck dynasty guy had instead stated negative things about christianity, instead of about gays? What do you think A&E would have done in that circumstance?

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

You are wrong, freedom of speech is not absolute. When your speech causes damage to another, you are going beyond the bounds of the law.

That equates to "My freedom of speech ends where your nose begins." Freedom of speech does not imply anyone has the right not to hear something they don't agree with. It simply guarantees everyone has the right to say what they think.

What if this duck dynasty guy had instead stated negative things about christianity, instead of about gays?

Look around you. Read this board. Others do that all the time, without consequence.

What do you think A&E would have done in that circumstance?

Nothing.

 

[KitKatMatt]

Look around you. Read this board. Others do that all the time, without consequence.

None of those who say negative things about Christianity on this board are national celebrities with shows on A&E to my knowledge.

Could be wrong, though.

 

[hollyda]

Look around you. Read this board. Others do that all the time, without consequence.

Do you not understand how individuals, many of whom remain anonymous, is different than a representative of a company (A&E) giving an interview? I've worked jobs where what I said on Facebook could be grounds for termination if they thought it negatively reflected on the company, and rightly so. I took measures to ensure my FB profile was private to prevent this from happening, but even that isn't a guarantee. Companies have a right to protect themselves.

 

[bhsmte]

That equates to "My freedom of speech ends where your nose begins." Freedom of speech does not imply anyone has the right not to hear something they don't agree with. It simply guarantees everyone has the right to say what they think.

You need to brush up on the law. Can you make false claims about someone that harms their reputation?

Can you yell "fire" in a crowded theater?

Can you say "I have a bomb" going through security before boarding a plane?

Can you say things that harms the reputation of your employer and goes against contractual agreement?

The answer to all of these questions is NO and everyone one of these circumstances have been tested legally and are constitutional.

Look around you. Read this board. Others do that all the time, without consequence.

Nothing.

People are anonymous on this board, big difference. Although, there have been anonymous posters are internet boards which have made incorrect libelous statements against their employer and the employer was allowed (through the courts) to subpoena the website for the person's identity and they were prosecuted and found guilty of libel.

 

[grasping the after wind]

You are wrong, freedom of speech is not absolute. When your speech causes damage to another, you are going beyond the bounds of the law.

No you are not. What is the point of freedom of speech if one can be stopped from speaking because someone felt harmed by what they said? Speech cannot cause literal damage to another person. The damage caused by someone else's speech is self inflicted. Who is the arbiter of whether a particular thing said is harmful. Should a Nazi feel harmed by being called a racist would it be proper to stop people from calling Nazis racists? Or Klansmen?

What if this duck dynasty guy had instead stated negative things about christianity, instead of about gays? What do you think A&E would have done in that circumstance?

Used it as a Promo or perhaps apply for a government grant for the arts? Prime time television is awash with speech that is offensive to many Christians no one has gotten fired yet and , hopefully no one will be.

 

[bhsmte]

No you are not. What is the point of freedom of speech if one can be stopped from speaking because someone felt harmed by what they said? Speech cannot cause literal damage to another person. The damage caused by someone else's speech is self inflicted. Who is the arbiter of whether a particular thing said is harmful. Should a Nazi feel harmed by being called a racist would it be proper to stop people from calling Nazis racists? Or Klansmen?

The legal system is the arbiter, when suit is filed. So, you would be ok with someone making false accusations about you, which tarnished your reputation with your employer, your family or the public? Physical damage to someone, is much easier to overcome, than a reputation that is tarnished, from false accusations coming from another person.


Used it as a Promo or perhaps apply for a government grant for the arts? Prime time television is awash with speech that is offensive to many Christians no one has gotten fired yet and , hopefully no one will be.

If this guy said something as negative about christianity, the same exact thing would have happened to him. Some christians really need to get over this; persecution complex they have.

 

[keith99]

Even though I don't agree with this man's views, I do think it's rather intolerant and poor behaviour of the show to fire him for them. It's completely their right, but as someone who loves free speech, it's exactly the unpopular opinions that need protecting the most.

Point or order.

Unless something new happened he has been suspended, not fired. They are different.

And the cynical side of me says if A & E does this right they can milk the publicity for weeks while keeping the guy in the long run.

 

[Metal Minister]

Point or order.

Unless something new happened he has been suspended, not fired. They are different.

And the cynical side of me says if A & E does this right they can milk the publicity for weeks while keeping the guy in the long run.

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me to have the rest of the cast walk as well. The DD folks really are in the driver's seat here. A&E needs them, they don't need A&E.

 

[bhsmte]

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me to have the rest of the cast walk as well. The DD folks really are in the driver's seat here. A&E needs them, they don't need A&E.

No one will walk, IMO.

They will end up bringing this guy back, after they determine the length of the suspension.

 

[durangodawood]

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, freedom from government interference in religion, freedom of assembly and a right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Free speech is universal, not limited to addressing the government. I do not have to check my beliefs at the door of my employer.

In short, there already is a law. It is called the Constitution. Actions contravening the directives of that document are automatically against the law.

You are really confused as to what a government constitution even IS.

The US Constitution establishes the structure and limitation of government. It does NOT regulate behaviors among private parties.

If you want to work for someone who will tolerate ANY sort of BS you care to spout, you are free to do so.

 

[keith99]

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me to have the rest of the cast walk as well. The DD folks really are in the driver's seat here. A&E needs them, they don't need A&E.

Yea, right.

That's why they are on A&E instead of small networks like NBC, CBS or Fox.

 

[Cearbhall]

Now I know you're just being funny because I've been told several times that just because my employer provides health insurance that pays for birth control it doesn't mean that I'm supporting it or paying for it myself.

So which is it?

The one that I said (in my opinion). You're supporting them. Not as directly as if you were sponsoring the organizations yourself, since you're motivated by your need for a job, but still.

I'm associated with all kinds of beliefs on a daily basis. What matters is what I believe.

Why does what you say you believe matter if your wallet is going somewhere else?

Probably because he's a guy and he was giving an interview to a guys' magazine...

True. I just find it odd, since he was talking about how homosexuality is a sin.

 

[Marius27]

No you are not. What is the point of freedom of speech if one can be stopped from speaking because someone felt harmed by what they said? Speech cannot cause literal damage to another person. The damage caused by someone else's speech is self inflicted. Who is the arbiter of whether a particular thing said is harmful. Should a Nazi feel harmed by being called a racist would it be proper to stop people from calling Nazis racists? Or Klansmen?

There exceptions to Freedom of Speech outlined in Case law. Yelling fire in a movie theatre is a perfect example. Inciting violence or riots. Defamation, etc. All are exceptions to the Freedom of Speech law.

 

[Metal Minister]

Yea, right.

That's why they are on A&E instead of small networks like NBC, CBS or Fox.

They were millionaires many times over prior to the show, and they will continue to be after. A&E will lose one of its top ratings grabbers. Who stands to lose more?

 

[Cearbhall]

It exposes how weak their position is, when they cannot respond with a better argument, so they try to shut down the discussion. Seems very familiar.....

Hm? They said he's wrong. What's the problem?

And this isn't A&E simply saying "we think he's wrong". It's A&E saying "our opinion and viewpoints matter more than yours do" when that shouldn't be the case at all. As I said, I would have more respect for the network if they came out and said "we respect that he has his viewpoints, but they don't agree with ours." and left it at that. GLAAD should be satisfied with that, too, instead of trying to shut up everyone who disagrees with them.

Just to clarify, how are you defining "should" here? Do you think that A&E is going against the Constitution, or are you simply saying that you would have handled the situation differently and find their decision to be in bad taste?

 

[RDKirk]

You mean like what would happen if I said something grossly disrespectful about Jesus, or a similar gross generalization about Christians on this site?

Or more comparable, a moderator saying something like that and expecting to keep their position.

Yes.

 

[Metal Minister]

Hm? They said he's wrong. What's the problem?

If that's all that happened, I would agree, and this would all be sound and fury signifying nothing. However, they took it a step further, and "suspended" him for his opinion.

 

[Cearbhall]

No, they're not. Even some of the people in the gay community have come out to support this man because he holds firm to his beliefs. They can respect that he disagrees with their lifestyle.

So? They aren't the company.

I think the main issue here isn't really business related, though. Phil was giving an interview to a magazine. He did not make these comments on the show nor did A&E air any show with such comments.

At what point in time is an employee separate from their place of employment?

Never, if that's what the contract says when you choose to sign it.

 

[psalms 91]

seems to e that the first amendment just got trampled. They have no problem showing the gay lifestyle so why not opposing opinions? That is now a dead channel to me