Free speech for me but NOT thee- the "Duck Dynasty" controversy

In the wake of the suspension of Phil Robertson, star of "Duck Dynasty" reality TV show in the US for airing virulently homophobic views by his sponsor A&E TV, some conservative commentators( bloggers and Twitter) have argued that he has a "right to free speech" based on his religious beliefs.

Personally I think this argument is BALONEY- and amounts to "free speech for me but not thee". As followers of my blog will know, I was kicked off a Catholic website some years back for referring to the US military generically as a bunch of knuckle dragging borderline psychopaths with an inveterate taste for blood. Now I am prepared to stand by my comments( even if they do sound rather intemperate in retrospect no matter how high the cost to me- I was simply repeating a Vietnam War era trope), but I am tempted to ask- where was my "free speech" rights( although a UK citizen, the site in quest was hosted in the US and so arguably came under the US Constitution's "First Amendment" rights)?

To quote the late US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, "Nobody has the right to shout falsely"Fire!" in a crowded theatre!"- freedom of expression, like any other freedom, is not an absolute right- Her Majesty's government has refused entry to known "Islamist" hate preachers as well as "shock jocks" like Michael "Whiner" Savage and Islamophobes like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.

Let's see- my own comments about the US military- although admittedly offensive to some, are enough to have me kicked off a Catholic website, even though they do NOT advocate violence- but Robertson's comments about gays should be defended on "religious grounds".

Terry

Also, it seems like this blog was made with the intention of venting your frustration against the website you were banned from, not the Duck Dynasty case.

Hey everyone....... Some old southern man made some racist and anti-gay comments...... Call Paula Deen.

I made it clear that I am prepared to stand by my comments-even if I was kicked off the site in question( odd reason for so doing- not disagreement with Church teaching but criticism of a secular institution), STILL sounds like "free speech for me but not for thee!" Also I signed no contract agreeing not to be critical of any government or its institutions when I joined the site. If the site's administrators seriously think that Uncle Sam and his armed forces are entitled to the same veneration that God is entitled I can only wonder if it is really "Catholic "in any meaningful sense- sounds like idolatry to me!

Terry

What Mr. Robertson doesn't seem to realize is that free speech works both ways: He has every right to make homophobic comments, and everyone else has the right to say he's a dick for saying them.

Freedom of speech just insures that you can speak your mind without prosecution from the government with the obvious exception being when you use your words to create a crime e.g. "Let's kill that guy," or "Fire" which causes an immediate danger to the people in the area and disturbs the peace. Freedom of speech does NOT keep you from being treated badly by others because you say something people dislike, so any conservatives that say this is a violation of freedom of speech is wrong. The same thing goes with your Catholic website issue.

However, there is an issue of tolerance. I do not like it when someone expresses their views and people clamor to get them fired. I would not want someone who is pro-gay to be fired for their views and I would not want someone anti-gay fired for their views. If it hateful to discriminate against homosexuals because of their lifestyle, it is equally hateful to discriminate against the anti-homosexuals. As long as nobody is trying to take away your rights to life, liberty and property, it should be live and let live.

Thank you! It's about time someone said that.

I could care less because I thought the show was overrated anyway.

Like JediXman said this just seems like a way for you to vent your frustrations. Also IMO if you of deliberately go on to a website and trash talk about a government that is not your own you kind of deserve to get banned from it.

You just love to bring up this Catholic website...

Isn't this like the 3rd time you've brought up the Catholic site and your military views in a thread? At this point, I just want to say everything has become rambling frustrations.

I disagree. A&E is a company. Doing something that is against the majority goes against the profit making machine. A&E wants to make money, and the fact of the matter is that a vast majority of viewers would have taken offense to that Duck Dynasty guy getting off easily. It would have put them in a bad light similar to how Chick-Fil-A will now always have a stigma about it. They may lose some viewers and money in the short run for this, but in the long run the company will be better off.

And, I don't really see how it's 'hateful' to 'discriminate' against bigots. I know what you're getting at, but would you say the same if this were a case of racism? Is it wrong to discriminate against a Skinhead?

@paracelsus: I've said this repeatedly but no one seems to get it, THIS WAS NOT A FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE. This was the result of the privately own Network shutting down a show out of fear that it would negatively affect their public perception, A&E is well within their rights to do the same to anyone on any of their shows. The First Amendment only applies to government censorship and has no power over a TV network programming. Had the government forced the network to remove the show then it would be a constitutional issue but that didn't happen here. What happened here is that a hillbilly said some ignorant s**t and got fired for it, it happens all the time to folks without a TV show and the only reason anyone cares is because for some insane reason people are interested in I don't know, Duck calls? I don't watch the show but that's not the point.

He should be forced to manufacture, sell and promote a new duck call in the shape of a fully erect black penis.

So this show is about duck calls? and people watch this? I get the car guys and motorcycle guys but duck calls? Is there really that much interest in a technology that hasn't really progressed since the first Roosevelt was president?

@joshmightbe: The family made their fortune on duck calls. I think the show is just about how eccentric these real life Beverly Hillbillies are.

@longbowhunter: Nah, that doesn't sound any better. If I wanted to see weird hillbillies goof off I wouldn't have moved out of my home town.

I know. With a show thats incredibly "Redneck" why are people surprised and shocked this guy would say that. It would be like watching a show about cooking and being surprised when someone mentions a spoon.

Don't get what the big deal is. So a bigoted homophobic ass hole voiced his bigoted homophobic view. He is probably loving all the publicity from this anyway.

Conservatives are freaking out about it because despite not wanting the government involved in bank regulation or healthcare or social reforms they are mad that there are no laws to prevent someone from being fired by a privately owned company for saying things that might affect their profits.

Ha ha pathetic.

Stupid comment, those guys from the New york storage hunting show had a stupid comeback, stupid people wasting time with anything these people say

Agreed. Besides, it seems like Paracelsus was just trying to shoehorn his opinion of the military into yet another thread.

There's a very thin line between free speech and hate speech. His religion has nothing to do with his personal views.

@joshmightbe: That's exactly why I don't watch it.

Why am I not surprised that people are calling the guy names for stating why he was against homosexuality? "Bigoted asshole"..You know what I find amusing is that the pro-gay side bitch about the anti's being so hateful yet how ironic that they're the ones always doing all the name calling and pretty much being the real douchebags. I think the whole bit is stupid simply because that question is a loaded question..If he were to say yes then nobody would've cared but since he said no they had to make a big controversy out of it. They do this every time someone says no to being for gay rights or whatever else..Last time I checked America was suppose to be about standing up for what you did or did not believe in,but then again I've forgotten that the world we live in now is where if you state you're against something,such as homosexuality,then the ones for it will bully you/harass you/downgrade you all because your opinions or beliefs aren't the same as theirs.

@gambit474: I honestly don't care about this guy or his opinions at all I just hate that people are claiming that his first amendment rights were violated despite the fact that the government had absolutely nothing to do with this. The first amendment has no power over a network self censoring. Basically this is the same principal as saying something to piss off your boss and getting fired for it, happens all the time and it never has anything to do with the first amendment. Now if congress or the President had ordered the network to shut down the show over this then it would be a first amendment issue, but that's not what happened.

What I view it as was stupid on their part to do in the first place. If there was going to be this much of a backlash for him saying no then why ask the question? "We're going to ask you what you believe but you're only allowed to answer by saying you agree with whatever we bring up"-hence why I call it a loaded question. It's the same crap they pulled back when Perez asked that Miss California or w.e she was what her view on it was...Say yes nothing happens,say no and they try to run them into the ground.

The issue isn't so much about free speech as it is free enterprise. For all the discussion of his right to say what he wants most have forgotten that this is A&E's show, network, and contracts. Their business is to make money. If they feel that some one they are paying on one of their shows on their network under their contract is losing money they have every right to rectify the situation.

If you think his right to free speech is being infringed upon (which by the way it's not--he said it and he hasn't been arrested nor has he gone to jail) then you have to at least respect A&E's right to free enterprise.

@gambit474: My point has nothing to do with back lash, I just want everyone to admit this has absolutely nothing to do with the first amendment. He's not going to jail for this, he's not paying government fines and isn't getting sanctioned this is a 100% in house decision from a tv network that is getting blown way out of proportion. Maybe if the guy had actually paid attention to who signs the checks for this show he would have given a more polite response considering the parent company of A&E is Disney who for the last few decades have been one of the most gay friendly corporations on Earth.

@jedixman: This.

Misleading title. This pretty much has nothing to with duck dynasty.

Also, you're crazy.

Here's the one part of this I can't wrap my head around, there's a tv show about hillbillies who make duck calls for a living and people actually watch this.

Being kicked off of that Catholic site must have been life changing.

and ...

This.

Crybabies... Crybabies as far as the eye can see.

I don't see what the big deal is. The man is a preacher of Christianity. He follows what the Bible says. In the Bible it clearly states homosexuality is wrong. There's really no avoiding that. There's no beating around the bush. There's not ignoring what the Bible says is wrong (if you are a follower of it.)

The man is a religious man who follows the Bible down to the T. So ofcoarse he thinks homosexuality is wrong. That doesn't mean he is going to love or treat a homosexual man any different than anyone else. He clearly states that in other interviews.

I think everyone is just taking this way out of proportion and when everyone starts bringing up 'Southern people are like that, what do you expect?' or 'The guy runs a duck calling company, he's a redneck, what do you expect?" it really becomes pathetic.

No I don't agree with what he said, but he was asked a question, and he answered. If it's what he believes, so be it.

Get over it and stop crying, people.

It's always something when people bring that up about Disney..They're so "gay friendly" yet they barely represent them at all in any of their tv shows,films,and all that other like. The most I see from them is "gay day" at Disney world

If this was against the majority, gay marriage would be legal in a majority of the states. Which it isn't.

Also, you have to think of the viewership of this show, which is mostly like myself and my family -- conservative. So it definitely isn't a majority within viewership, which is all that matters for A&E's profit.

And your "It's not hateful to discriminate against bigots" has a couple of problems. Firstly, it's fundamentally the same thing that OP had a problem with, which is "Free speech for me but not for thee." Secondly, bigot is an entirely subjective term. I don't find Phil to be a bigot at all, but you seem to, so whose definition do we use?

I actually think Phil Robertson is a really good person. From what I've seen. He is a real loving and caring man.

Everyone calling him a bigot and a piece of racist crap is pretty pathetic as well.

I should have said they like to look gay friendly, they wouldn't risk losing the more traditional audience by actually showcasing a gay character under the official Disney show. See they can skirt the issue of not having a gay character on the Disney channel and still manage to get profit from the gay community but they for the sake of profit can't appear to support someone saying something overtly anti-gay. Make no mistake this has nothing to do with morality, they're just trying to cover their asses from all angles.

I'm more surprised this hasn't happen already

Exactly how I feel..The ones against him are the ones actually being the far more discriminating and hateful ones compared to what he said. I just read that cracker barrel's pulled their products of him so that they don't "offend anyone". Ahh the joys of companies trying to be "politically correct" so that these groups don't throw their temper tantrums