Clyde, I do have one serious question for you. not sure if you read my post about this or not, but what do you think about A&E having a Duck dynasty marathon in 2 days and airing 6 new episodes in Jan all including PHil in all those episodes? Isn't that a bit hypocritical? I mean if they are suspending PHil because of this and want to show the people and companies who are upset with what Phil said, then why air all those episodes after they suspended him from the show?

 

No problem with it. They paid him for those shows.

No problem with it. They paid him for those shows.

But what kind of message is that sending?

But what kind of message is that sending?

 

That the show is still in favor by AE but they will punish an individual who crosses their acceptable line.

 

I don't see a problem with them airing the shows.

 

Again, they're out to make money.

But what has actually happened flies in the face of what your saying, they tried to fire them (you said they should expect that) but in each case the elected official lost in court and were told that they could not fire them without cause. The fired employees received back pay compensation in some cases damages and their job back in some cases. So the courts have said that you can't just fire someone without cause just because your the newly elected "Boss".

 

That just doesn't sound right. Perhaps the county's defense team was overmatched? Again, those are patronage jobs in reality. Perhaps they are not treated as such legally? I need more information.

He was fired, suspended, whatever because a bunch of gay groups protested and A&E was scared of the same stuff Chic Filet went through and afraid a boycott would happen with their sponsors. Maybe they are looking at 3 years down the line when DD may have run its course.

 

Not saying you're incorrect but I can't find any reports of protests PRIOR to the suspension. I did see one where GLAAD had a comment after the suspension. I hadn't heard anything until AE made the announcement.

That the show is still in favor by AE but they will punish an individual who crosses their acceptable line.

 

I don't see a problem with them airing the shows.

 

Again, they're out to make money.

Fair enough. I agree with you btw, the message it sends me is it is all about the bottom dollar and has nothing to do with offending any group of people with what he said. If it didd they wouldn't have him on their network at all.

 

 

I, like you believe this entire thing has everything to do with money and A&E really could care less about what he said except that they are afraid they will lose sponsors. Unfortunatley they send the message that they don't care about the actual people that make them money but rather the sponsors themselves. The actual people are expendable when it comes to the bottomline.

A&E is the villan in this episode which is sad, it is ironic in a way that this episode reminds me of the merchants in the temple when Jesus became so upset. A&E being one of the merchants. Greed can be an ugly thing sometimes.

I think issue and this time is good to take a step back and ask ourselves if our feelings on speech are consistent. Did we have the same reaction when radio stations capitulated to the protesters of the Dixie Chicks when they expressed "free speech?"

 

Exact same situation: performers publicly expressed an opinion and it was an opinion that was not a surprise as they were known to be liberal. They suffered financially as a result of the protests. They didn't "hate" the President. They just disagreed.

 

So did you react the same way as you did to this case?

That just doesn't sound right. Perhaps the county's defense team was overmatched? Again, those are patronage jobs in reality. Perhaps they are not treated as such legally? I need more information.

 

Several years ago a new County Judge came in and fired some that did not support his election and gave those jobs to supporters...they sued and won...A LOT!!!

 

New County Clerk elected, fired several upon his taking office...they sued and won.

 

New County Attorney elected, took office fired several employees, they began to sue and it was settled out of court.

 

My point on this whole line is that I think there are repercussions that can fall back on a business or employer for simply firing someone for non work related issues. In Phil's case since there was an A&E Publicist present they may look at this as he was representing them as an employee of A&E not Duck Commander...side note on publicist, Phil and reporter went on and ATV ride and the publicist didn't go with them...that is supposedly when the question and comments came up...according to TMZ

I think issue and this time is good to take a step back and ask ourselves if our feelings on speech are consistent. Did we have the same reaction when radio stations capitulated to the protesters of the Dixie Chicks when they expressed "free speech?"

 

Exact same situation: performers publicly expressed an opinion and it was an opinion that was not a surprise as they were known to be liberal. They suffered financially as a result of the protests. They didn't "hate" the President. They just disagreed.

 

So did you react the same way as you did to this case?

 

Not Apples to Apples...Radio Stations don't employ the Dixie Chicks they only help promote them. I do agree that several stations chose not to air the Dixie Chicks music due to backlash of their customers, but the Radio Station has no obligation to play their music and no binding contract between them. It would be similar if their label had dropped them over those comments.

 

BTW she didn't say she disagreed with the President she said she "was ashamed that he was from Texas" while on stage in a foriegn country...I've always thought that if she had said this in the US it would have been a much smaller deal, in reality she probably did make similar comments in the US...I think the fact she did it overseas upset people as much or more than what she said.

Not Apples to Apples...Radio Stations don't employ the Dixie Chicks they only help promote them. I do agree that several stations chose not to air the Dixie Chicks music due to backlash of their customers, but the Radio Station has no obligation to play their music and no binding contract between them. It would be similar if their label had dropped them over those comments.

 

BTW she didn't say she disagreed with the President she said she "was ashamed that he was from Texas" while on stage in a foriegn country...I've always thought that if she had said this in the US it would have been a much smaller deal, in reality she probably did make similar comments in the US...I think the fact she did it overseas upset people as much or more than what she said.

 

It is indeed apples to apples because many people (probably some on here) freaked out when they made their comments. No different than this situation. My question does not deal with the employer/employee aspect. I'm talking about the DD supporters saying "it's his right."

 

The words she used have no bearing on my question. My question simply deals with consistency. Do you (collective) side with ALL free speech even if you disagree? I bet if we go back and look at old Dixie Chicks threads that many used the "foreign country" issue as pure rationalization when it was really political.

I think issue and this time is good to take a step back and ask ourselves if our feelings on speech are consistent. Did we have the same reaction when radio stations capitulated to the protesters of the Dixie Chicks when they expressed "free speech?"

 

Exact same situation: performers publicly expressed an opinion and it was an opinion that was not a surprise as they were known to be liberal. They suffered financially as a result of the protests. They didn't "hate" the President. They just disagreed.

 

So did you react the same way as you did to this case?

Personally I don't look at this as a freedom of speech sort of thing. I understand we all have freedom to say what is on our minds to an extent, but I have also always believed that even though you have freedom of speech, you also must understand that you may be faced with consequences for what you say. Not being arrested per say, but freedom of speech doesn't mean you may not lose monetary tings or even be labeled in a certain way that may hurt future employment etc.

 

I understand all of that, I as I've said several times have always looked at this as more of a freedom of religion aspect as to where I think Phil is being condemned soley on his relgious beliefs, beliefs that the network was already well aware of.

Personally I don't look at this as a freedom of speech sort of thing. I understand we all have freedom to say what is on our minds to an extent, but I have also always believed that even though you have freedom of speech, you also must understand that you may be faced with consequences for what you say. Not being arrested per say, but freedom of speech doesn't mean you may not lose monetary tings or even be labeled in a certain way that may hurt future employment etc.

 

I understand all of that, I as I've said several times have always looked at this as more of a freedom of religion aspect as to where I think Phil is being condemned soley on his relgious beliefs, beliefs that the network was already well aware of.

 

Freedom of Religion would be if they were not allowed to practice their religion or fired for simply being of a certain religion. This is purely a speech issue (like the Chicks) and the consequences of expressing your opinion.

It is indeed apples to apples because many people (probably some on here) freaked out when they made their comments. No different than this situation. My question does not deal with the employer/employee aspect. I'm talking about the DD supporters saying "it's his right."

 

The words she used have no bearing on my question. My question simply deals with consistency. Do you (collective) side with ALL free speech even if you disagree? I bet if we go back and look at old Dixie Chicks threads that many used the "foreign country" issue as pure rationalization when it was really political.

To me it is 2 tatoally different things. 1 is freedom of speech thing, the other freedom of religion.

1 is a statement made by a country group stating their political beliefs. The other by a man stating his religous beliefs. 1 a country group who took it upon themselves (or at least the lead signer during a concert) to state their view oon the presidents actions when not even provoked or asked about them. The other was in an interview and talking about his religous beliefs.

 

the only thing that is apples to apples imo is the fact that they both lost money because of what they said. the circumstances surrounding both were toatlly different and the subject was also totally different.

To me it is 2 tatoally different things. 1 is freedom of speech thing, the other freedom of religion.

1 is a statement made by a country group stating their political beliefs. The other by a man stating his religous beliefs. 1 a country group who took it upon themselves (or at least the lead signer during a concert) to state their view oon the presidents actions when not even provoked or asked about them. The other was in an interview and talking about his religous beliefs.

 

the only thing that is apples to apples imo is the fact that they both lost money because of what they said. the circumstances surrounding both were toatlly different and the subject was also totally different.

 

That sounds like pure rationalization to me. Both said something that offended people. No one protested Phil's going to church. They protested what he said.

It is indeed apples to apples because many people (probably some on here) freaked out when they made their comments. No different than this situation. My question does not deal with the employer/employee aspect. I'm talking about the DD supporters saying "it's his right."

 

The words she used have no bearing on my question. My question simply deals with consistency. Do you (collective) side with ALL free speech even if you disagree? I bet if we go back and look at old Dixie Chicks threads that many used the "foreign country" issue as pure rationalization when it was really political.

 

I for one didn't like what she said but she had the right to say it. There is a lot of stuff said that I don't like, but outside of bullying I think most of it is and should be protected.