I Cant Believe I'm Writing This, But: "In Defense of Phil Robertson"

[JRP1994]

The developments today regarding the removal of Phil Robertson from A&E's "Duck Dynasty" after Robertson's comments on homosexuality have prompted me to briefly articulate my thoughts on the matter.

The United States of America was founded on the notion that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. To further safeguard these rights against the threat of an oppressive government, the Founding Fathers enshrined some of our most sacred liberties into the Bill of Rights. Highlighted in the First Amendment is the invaluable freedom of speech - the right of each and every man and woman to speak his/her thoughts in public, without fear of punishment. While the Supreme Court has clarified some logically necessary boundaries on this, the over-riding principle of the First Amendment remains the same -- the assurance of the right to speak one's mind on controversial and unpopular subjects. 

A&E's decision to remove Phil Robertson from "Duck Dynasty" deeply troubles me, not because I necessarily agree with Robertson's comments regarding homosexuality, but because his removal highlights a fundamental hypocrisy on the part of much of American media. Near limitless leeway is granted, in terms of tolerance and acceptance, for those whose views align with popular sentiment, and whose speech is confined to the politically correct vernacular. Phil Robertson is facing vicious attacks, largely, from those who often speak in favor of tolerance, diversity of opinion, and freedom of expression. Is this the mark of a civilized society? I think not.

Do I watch "Duck Dynasty"? No. Do I agree with Phil Robertson's comparison of homosexuals to adulterers, drunks, and swindlers? No, and I find the comment offensive. However, the Constitution does not grant anyone the right to not be offended. Because I dearly value the right to articulate my beliefs, I will not shy away from defending Phil Robertson's right to speak his mind and express his faith, even though I may disagree with what he chooses to say. In the words of Evelyn Beatrice Hall, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I hope A&E will reconsider their position on this issue.

[Deus Naturae]

There's a difference between what's allowed to go on in the public sphere and what a private television network decides to broadcast...

[Thomas D]

If I go into work tomorrow and start ranting about "The Jews and The Blacks" I suspect I'd get in trouble for it.

Freedom of speech does not mean there aren't consequences for speech.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

A&E is a private institution that caters to the public, so it is well within their rational best interests to suspend him. This is not a violation of free speech at all. I applaud them for defending their rights as a private entity for suspending him, in fact.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Phil Robertson is facing vicious attacks, largely, from those who often speak in favor of tolerance, diversity of opinion, and freedom of expression. Is this the mark of a civilized society? I think not.

I don't consider railing against homosexuals to be a mark of a civilized society either.

[DrScholl]

I love how private enterprise is completely disregarded when it comes to things like this. No one is obligated to keep a person on payroll because of free speech, private companies set their own standards and don't have to go by free speech. You failed with the thread miserably.

[Indy Texas]

Having a right to free speech means you are not prevented from making that speech by the government. If you want to protest on the National Mall, the government can't discriminate against who gets a permit and they can't beat protestors bloody with billy clubs and shoot them indiscriminately.

It doesn't mean your speech is guaranteed to have no consequences with regards to how individuals and private institutions of society choose to react to your speech.

It is absurd that we have to have this conversation with conservatives all the time...

"Ah hate the gays and the Muslims. And them Mex'kins need to go back where they come from."

"That's a rather boorish, intolerant thing to say. I think I'd rather not invite you to my weekly book club since several of our members are gay or Muslim or Hispanic."

"YOU CAN'T DO THAT! AH HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH! YOU DIRTY FASCIST SOCIALIST COMMUNIST!!!"

[7,052,770]

LOLwut.

It would be one thing if the government were putting him in jail.  But his employer disassociating with him in no way violates his free speech, nor does a columnist exercising his/her free speech to disagree with him.

[MaxQue]

If a store had a cashier insulting customers, they would be well within their right to fire him.

[henster]

Where was the outrage and sympathy for Martin Bashir he had "freedom of speech"

[Holmes]

I learned in like kindergarten that words have consequences, and that if you have nothing to say, don't say it. Someone might get offended. But I doubt this Phil Robertson character would know anything about that because I'm sure he's never been to a school. He's just a dumb redneck, and they never finish their schooling. And it's my right to say that.

Now I just wish everyone would shut up about this.

[bedstuy]

As other people have said, the right to free speech is not a right to say stupid things with no consequences.  If you actually respect your own voice as a member of society, you are careful about what you say and you don't say things that are 1. dumb or 2. hateful to other people.  If you say those type of things, people will think you're dumb and/or hateful.  It isn't our prerogative to refrain from judgment of the content of other people's speech.  If you want me to respect what you're saying,  defend your points with reasonable speech and convince me.  That' the marketplace of ideas.

Also, please don't tell me to tolerate homophobia.  Homophobia is an attack on gay people and any civilized person.  Responding to homophobia and confronting it is self-defense.

[Tripp]

I found this post on google and joined to chime in: I disagree for the most part with Robertson's statements but, I think freedom of speech exists and he shouldn't have been fired. TV networks are businesses, are they not? If people want to watch his show, keep him on the air. If people are offended and don't want to watch, then take him off he causes you to lose money.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

If I go into work tomorrow and start ranting about "The Jews and The Blacks" I suspect I'd get in trouble for it.

Freedom of speech does not mean there aren't consequences for speech.

Yes... but you have to add the disclaimer that those consequences can NEVER AND SHOULD NEVER COME FROM THE STATE.  In this case, it comes from a private television network (and one that's flying very high since the premiere of Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead) that does not want to promote someone who is viciously anti-gay.  Unless there was something outlined in his contract that would protect him from this, I'm okay with. 

On a personal level... I love when these types get outed and publicly humiliated.  It's probably one of my nastier traits, but I've truly no mercy for the ones who use their religion to justify bigotry. 

[7,052,770]

I learned in like kindergarten that words have consequences, and that if you have nothing to say, don't say it. Someone might get offended. But I doubt this Phil Robertson character would know anything about that because I'm sure he's never been to a school. He's just a dumb redneck, and they never finish their schooling. And it's my right to say that.

Not sure if you are being serious or not, but Phil Robertson has a master's degree  (in English Literature no less...), like several of the characters on the show.

I honestly thought he knew better.  I still believe that most of the people on the show do.

[Mordecai]

A&E isn't the government and Phil Robertson isn't being charged with anything so I don't see what the big deal is. It's the same thing that happened to Paula Deen and Martin Bashir.

[Indy Texas]

I knew it was only a matter of time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I knew it was only a matter of time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She is the world's best attention whore.  God Bless America.

[riceowl]

I knew it was only a matter of time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Doesn't it take a lot more time to think about and then type hatin' than it does to type hating?  This is like....double reverse folksy.

[DC Al Fine]

A&E isn't the government and Phil Robertson isn't being charged with anything so I don't see what the big deal is. It's the same thing that happened to Paula Deen and Martin Bashir.

I think the network is well within its rights to suspend Robertson. That said, this habit of firing people when they make make an inappropriate remark is getting a bit tiring. People are so bloody sensitive these days.

[7,052,770]

It just occurred to me that this was probably an intentional marketing ploy. Watch Duck Dynasty sales skyrocket ala Chic-Fila because fundies are so gullible and predictable.

[Consciously Unconscious]

All the posts on facebook are making me laugh.  This doesn't really have anything to do with free speech.  A&E can fire or suspend someone if they think it will look bad on the company. 

It just occurred to me that this was probably an intentional marketing ploy. Watch Duck Dynasty sales skyrocket ala Chic-Fila because fundies are so gullible and predictable.

Oh God you're probably right.  I don't know if I can take any more of this horrendous show.  My family loves it though   I find it awful. 

I wonder if they'll lose the merchandise contract with Walmart. 

[Link]

The United States of America was founded on the notion that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.

For Ph-ck sake!!! This BS again?!

When will people like you learn you do not have an "inalienable right" to go on someone else's PRIVATE cable network and do whatever makes you happy with no regard for the OWNER of said network?

This country was founded with private property rights as a cornerstone.  So that means you do not have an inalienable right to take a dump on my kitchen floor just because I hired you to fix my leaky faucet.  And after taking said dump you do not have an "inalienable right" to refuse to leave when I object.

What about this is not clear?!

To further safeguard these rights against the threat of an oppressive government...

WTF?!  A&E is a PRIVATE company.  What does the government have to do with this?  If A&E said we love this guy and want to keep him on the air there is nothing the government can do about it.  And if A&E says they are going to give the guy a little vacation there is nothing the government can do about that.

[Link]

I think the network is well within its rights to suspend Robertson. That said, this habit of firing people when they make make an inappropriate remark is getting a bit tiring. People are so bloody sensitive these days.

I think this habit of people who are making millions of dollars not being able to do simple things like getting n-gg-er and gay or homosexual out of their vocabulary is getting a bit tiring.  If someone said I will pay you a million dollars a year to not say anything about homosexuals I think most people with two brain cells could do it.  Pretty easy job in my opinion.  If you can't do it you should get canned.  There are enough morons on American TV as is.  Time to thin the herd.

[SteveRogers]

Of course Phil Robertson has a right to speak his mind. Did the government sanction his speech? No? Then it isn't a free speech issue.

Quite the contrary actually. A&E has the same first amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association, and they're exercising theirs.