I don't know why it's assumed A&E has done this against their financial interests.

 

Anytime you make this type of decision there is the risk of it hurting financially. It may help. My GUESS is that the majority of this show's audience that have a strong opinion have one that is in support of Phil.

Hardly. It's an employment issue if Phil R. came to them WANTING a job.

 

I believe that A&E came to the Robertsons WANTING to make money off of a business partnership with them. I believe this will be seen as a bad business decision on A&E's part.

 

I don't think that who sought whom has any potential legal bearing. My guess is this is covered by a contact. They are not at-will employees.

 

I can't imagine what legal basis Phil would have to sue.

I assume A&E feels that if they didn't act they fear they might lose viewers.

 

Why? Do you think there's a huge segment of gays watching the show? And that A&E might lose them?

 

And if so, what are the calculated numbers of possible viewership GAINS from people with similar views to Phil Robertson's?

Hardly. It's an employment issue if Phil R. came to them WANTING a job.

 

I believe that A&E came to the Robertsons WANTING to make money off of a business partnership with them. I believe this will be seen as a bad business decision on A&E's part.

 

Who sought who for a deal is completely irrelevant as to which area of law covers this problem we have here.

 

"Freedom of speech" is a right held by the people from their government. It is not a right held between employers and employees.

Why? Do you think there's a huge segment of gays watching the show? And that A&E might lose them?

 

And if so, what are the calculated numbers of possible viewership GAINS from people with similar views to Phil Robertson's?

 

As I subsequently stated most of their viewers who have a strong opinion probably support Phil.

 

However, AE might be looking bigger picture than one show. I'd also add that it's not just gays that are/might be offended.

I don't think that who sought whom has any potential legal bearing. My guess is this is covered by a contact. They are not at-will employees.

 

I can't imagine what legal basis Phil would have to sue.

I'm not talking about legal action. I'm talking about pragmatic business decisions.

 

Charlie Sheen had issues that eventually got him removed from his show (although he was given quite a bit of time before CBS canned him).

 

CBS exercised their "employment rights", but paid for it as the show suffered greatly.

Anytime you make this type of decision there is the risk of it hurting financially. It may help. My GUESS is that the majority of this show's audience that have a strong opinion have one that is in support of Phil.

 

These are my guesses on how this could have played out at A&E:

 

1. They sat down and decided that the views expressed by Robertson were not in line with the company's morals, and even though this might hurt them financially it is The Right Thing To Do.
   
2. Fearing hoards of negative publicity, protests, boycotts, advertisers pulling out, etc., A&E thought their best option was to get out in front of the blowback and suspend Robertson and hope that the controversy doesn't eclipse the show and then they can quietly resume as normal.
   
3. The show has a wider viewer base than most realize and A&E fears it is in danger of alienating part of that audience or turning the show into a political cri de coeur for a much narrower, less profitable audience.
   

Option one is unrealistic, the others are driven by a financial motive. Perhaps A&E is incorrect or miscalculating, but it strikes me as almost entirely unlikely that they would have placed some other ideal above profit in their decision-making.

I guess freedom of speech and religion only apply to the chosen few.

 

Free speech needs a State actor discriminating against him when his speech isn't trying to advocate violence or unlawful action or something similar, not a network tv station who can claim sponsorship dollars. Look up "hostile audience speech". Even if a speaker's message is likely to get an immediate violent reaction from an audience, the police have to make reasonable efforts to protect the speaker.

 

Freedom to exercise his religion would be if the State punished him by throwing him in jail for being Christian, or put some kind of unreasonable restriction on his freedom to exercise, like saying that all Christian worship had to take place 5,000 feet from a school.

 

He'd have a freedom of speech (association) issue if he went through all the correct channels and tried to host a rally for an unpopular viewpoint in a local (State) park and was denied when they'd had someone there with a popular message the week before, the week after, etc.

 

I don't think your conception of free speech applies to a network tv figure with the kind of contract he probably has with them, and even if it might, they probably say all the damage he'd done in advertising dollars, etc. justified what they did.

 

 

 

... And by the way, I saw Phil's comment, think he's got a right to have it and don't see how it's really fair to him.

 

At the end of the day though, this may lead to the Duck Dynasty franchise getting even more attention and views than they might have otherwise. I've only seen the show once or twice, but there's only so many episodes they can do and keep it fresh. People who feel like he's been wronged are now going to tune, buy more Duck Dynasty apparel, etc.

 

Not saying he did it for the money, but you think the guy might have a publicist in the room with him when he was doing the interview?

 

Admire him for sticking to his guns, even though he knew it'd be unpopular. He's got a right to believe what he wants and give an honest answer to that question as long as it isn't something outrageous that calls for hurting people or something like that.

As I subsequently stated most of their viewers who have a strong opinion probably support Phil.

 

However, AE might be looking bigger picture than one show. I'd also add that it's not just gays that are/might be offended.

 

Maybe some kind of EEOC claim if he gets fired, but even then I doubt it given the nature of his contract and the network's reliance on advertising dollars. I'm not really great with employment law and it's not really something that's required curriculum, but maybe there's something that he could file that would give him leverage to settle even if he doesn't really have a good chance of winning. Still, doing that really isn't a good luck though and he doesn't strike me as the "pay or it won't go away" type.

Robertsons get $200k per episode, which is divided up among 20 cast members.

^ that seems low. A&E has to be making way more than that I'd think. I'll probably take my stand in not watching till he's back. Not because I necessarily agree or disagree with him, but I respect his right to feel the way he does. He shouldn't be punished for his faith. I thought a big reason for people settling in America was. To escape religious persecution?

^ that seems low. A&E has to be making way more than that I'd think. I'll probably take my stand in not watching till he's back. Not because I necessarily agree or disagree with him, but I respect his right to feel the way he does. He shouldn't be punished for his faith. I thought a big reason for people settling in America was. To escape religious persecution?

 

Correct. And when the govt comes to arrest Phil for his religious beliefs, holler at me.

I don't watch Duck Dynasty. Saw a bit of one episode and was shocked to find out it's a popular show.

 

With that said I get A&E's stance(although at Lipton Bash points out it has it's $ risks).

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but the point of this show is not their religious beliefs. The episode I saw makes it seem like they're just playing roles of somewhat ignorant southerners. So expressing their beliefs on abortion, gay marriage, or homosexuality doesn't seem to be the reason people watch.

 

I assume A&E feels that if they didn't act they fear they might lose viewers. I get that. I support their right to do so.

 

As we always point out , your right to freely express your views doesn't come without potential ramifications.

Well if you did watch an episode, not sure which one you watched but you couldn't be further from what the show is about in your summary of what you saw. The reason it is so popular is just the oppostie of what you posted. When I first watched the show, in it's first year, I turned it on thinking "Oh no, they are going to make southerners look like idiots and all the stereotypes they will portray here" which was the absolute opposite of what the show was about. Instead it showed very intelligent family that just so happens to live int he south and love to hunt. The religious aspect was right in front of you and actually is what I questioned if it would be succesful or not because they threw their religious beliefs right in front for all to see.

 

Each episode ends with them in prayer at the dinner table, several episodes revolve around their church, and the oldest son on the show is a minister. For A&E to punish Phil for what everyone already knew he believed in from the start is just stupid on A&E's part.

Each episode ends with them in prayer at the dinner table, several episodes revolve around their church, and the oldest son on the show is a minister. For A&E to punish Phil for what everyone already knew he believed in from the start is just stupid on A&E's part.

 

The way in which he said he said it was probably extremely embarrassing for A&E. The guy drew a straight line from gay people to bestiality. He can believe that all he wants... I guess... but A&E doesn't have to give him a platform for it.

^ that seems low. A&E has to be making way more than that I'd think. I'll probably take my stand in not watching till he's back. Not because I necessarily agree or disagree with him, but I respect his right to feel the way he does. He shouldn't be punished for his faith. I thought a big reason for people settling in America was. To escape religious persecution?

 

They were making a lot less until a new agreement was reached sometime during the late summer.