PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS !!!

[Guest EXPAT]

He's now been suspended from the hit reality show indefinitely. And of course his fans are outraged.

[Guest NCBored]

He's now been suspended from the hit reality show indefinitely. And of course his fans are outraged.

I've never watched more than 5 minutes of the show, although I have relatives who are big fans. And I certainly don't agree with his beliefs.

But...I'm not sure that what he said warrants being suspended from the show, for merely stating his religious beliefs. (ducking now)

[AdamSmith]

Hah! The rightwing blogosphere is aflame with "Our first-amendment rights are being suppressed!"

They forget A.J. Liebling's observation "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."

Miz Deen's late tribulations ought to have reminded everybody what befalls stars who draw trouble to their networks.

[RA1]

Hasn't Phil being suggesting that he wants to do less on the show? It appears that he will get his chance.

NC Bored- Is "ducking now" a code word, kind of like a secret handshake, indicating you secretly approve of DD?

I can generally only get so upset about so called entertainment. Being famous or infamous does not make you intelligent or knowledgeable.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest NCBored]

Hasn't Phil being suggesting that he wants to do less on the show? It appears that he will get his chance.

NC Bored- Is "ducking now" a code word, kind of like a secret handshake, indicating you secretly approve of DD?

I can generally only get so upset about so called entertainment. Being famous or infamous does not make you intelligent or knowledgeable.

Best regards,

RA1

No approval, RA1, just a bit of humor (since I expected my questioning might draw a few brickbats.)

[Guest EXPAT]

He could be fired or suspended for creating a hostile work environment. You can't say whatever you want at work in that situation.

[Guest NCBored]

He could be fired or suspended for creating a hostile work environment. You can't say whatever you want at work in that situation.

He was 'fired' from a 'reality' TV show - for remarks he made not on the set but in an interview with an unrelated publication. The cynical side of me wonders if it really comes to money (as is usually the case). Does A&E fear loss of sponsors/advertisers & viewers?

Of course, A&E pays him to play a role, and those remarks are perhaps inconsistent with the character they wish to portray.

[AdamSmith]

The cynical side of me wonders if it really comes to money (as is usually the case). Does A&E fear loss of sponsors/advertisers & viewers?

What else? It is a for-profit enterprise.

Why is it ever and again a surprise when entertainers get in trouble with their employers for mouthing off in ways that stir up negative PR?

[AdamSmith]

Sorry, repeat post.

[Guest CharliePS]

My first reaction is always satisfaction when someone pays for making offensive anti-gay statements. Then I remember it was not so very long ago when making pro-gay statements was considered offensive, and a public figure would pay for it. If we are in favor of freedom of speech, we should remember that it can cut both ways. Political correctness is best when it supports what you already believe rather than what someone else believes.

[wayout]

Latest update:

The Robertson family just drew a line in the sand with A&E -- NO PHIL, NO SHOW ... and says they are already talking to the cable channel about possibly pulling the plug on "Duck Dynasty."

The family issued a statement saying, "As a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of 'Duck Dynasty.'"

They also say they're "disappointed" that Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E just for expressing his religious beliefs ... which, they point out, is his "constitutionally protected right."

Fun fact: "Duck Dynasty" is the highest rated cable reality TV show ever.

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2013/12/19/duck-dynasty-robertson-family-statement-phil/#ixzz2o2fn7mfZ

It's getting interesting now. Money, religion and sex. Sounds like the making of a great TV show. Is the family bluffing? Will A&E cave? Stay tuned....same bat time, same bat channel

[RA1]

wayout and NCBored-

I was just kidding you when you used the word "duck". I knew what you meant.

Of course, A&E is worried about money and viewers. However they may wish Phil to portray his character, I would say his remarks are perfectly in character.

In this day of instant so called news, there will always quickly be at least two sides to every position reported. Chic-Fil-A perhaps should be boycotted for their stands but instead they had people making a point to buy their products. This country seems to be on a fast track to become a democracy to include instant voting on each and every subject. Unfortunately, that tends to lead to repression as well as intolerance. Our republic has worked very well, not perfectly, for a very long time. Let's try to not change things too rapidly.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

[Guest EXPAT]

The family can whine all they want, but legal experts say they probably have no ground to stand on, since basically all Hollywood contracts include a morals clause, and that generally includes the right to terminate the contract is the star “speaks or acts in a way that insults or denigrates people.” THe decision of what violates that clause is generally left up to the networks. As for the free speech claim, UCLA Law professor Eugene Volokh says “He has no First Amendment [complaint] against A&E. The First Amendment, the first word of the First Amendment is Congress: ‘Congress shall make no law.’” And there’s no religious freedom claim either. “It doesn’t sound like they were taking him off the show because they don’t like the fact that his message is religious; I think they don’t like the fact that his message is anti-gay. And people of various religions and no religions, some of them are anti-gay. and i imagine if an atheist on an A&E show said things that A&E thought disapproved of homosexuality, they would deal with it the same way.”

[Guest hitoallusa]

Well I don't think his hair isn't that bad and he looks very handsome.. Anyways, why would GQ report anti gay remarks in the first place if they it is wrong. They could have terminated the interview and communicate his views are not acceptable to be written in their magazine. Did the interviewer conducted the interview fairly and didn't lead him to such a comment? I think there is more to the story..

[RA1]

This isn't about legal issues, it is about who has the upper hand, the "stars" of the show or the network. As always, the likely bottom line will be dollars.

Best regards,

RA1