Seems like there is a “War on free speech”. First it was Martin Bashir who was forced to part ways with MSNBC for his comments on Sarah Palin, and now A+E TV has suspended/fired Phil Robertson for making “anti-gay” comments during an interview with GQ. I never watched the show, but the Duck Dynasty stars sure do look like my older brothers. From what I have read, Phil is a hard-core Christian who believes homosexuality is a sin, just as infidelity and drunkeness. Gee, I couldn’t see that one coming.
Brandon Ambrosino wrote an interesting article called “The ‘Duck Dynasty’ Fiasco says more about our bigotry than Phil’s”. What caught my eye in the article is that Pope Francis and Phil have the similar beliefs on homosexuality, one is Time’s Person of the Year, the other just got fired. I linked his article below.
GLAAD responded to Phil’s comments by stating “Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A+E TV and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.” There we go with the threats rather than reaching out to Phil, perhaps go shoot some duck in Louisiana and show Phil people are not that much different, no matter who you may love. Now the shows audience is furious, Palin is defending Phil, Gov. Jindal wants Phil back on the show, it’s Chic-Fil-A redux.
A+E TV said “We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community.” Apparently, A+E execs decided to let Phil go, I suppose Phil isn’t allowed to have a personal opinion, unless he is a Pope who bashes Capitalism.
I don’t want to print what Phil said, kinda graphic language and not the point of this diary. But when one asks a devote Christian his or her beliefs, do you want a fake or honest answer? I prefer honesty, right or wrong, then if need be, have a positive, yet respectful dialogue, which is what I wish the LGBA community had done in this case, instead of issuing threats of boycotts or protests of the shows sponsors.
We have seen similar protests of Rush Limbaugh’s sponsors, or Bill Maher’s Politically Incorrect when he made fun of Sarah’s youngest son, and everything in between. I say let freedom ring and the viewers decide, not the Thought Police who want to silence Americans who they disagree with, or find offensive. If you can’t handle it, don’t ask for ones opinion or simply turn the channel and leave everyone else alone to enjoy the show. After all, this is America.
The <i>Duck Dynasty</i> Fiasco Says More About Our Bigotry Than Phil’s
johnk says
A&E based this all on the viewers. This is not free speech unless of course you can convince everyone the the A&E Network is the government. But since you can’t it’s not a free speech issue.
If you do something to portray your employer in a bad light, you can get canned, that’s not a first amendment issue. If you make a sh**load of cash for your employer, then maybe they just suspend you to save face. This dimwit says some BS to make everyone happy then you go back on your merry way on the show.
That’s it.
danfromwaltham says
They are not engaged in stifling free speech? Whether it’s government pulling the plug on a show or the Thought Police whining and complaining, the results are the same, are they not?
johnk says
like MSNBC or A&E deciding that an action of an employee put the “company” in a bad position. In the last two cases, one didn’t bring in lots of cash and was dismissed, the other brings in a ton of cash so they are tip toeing as they want to PR it but still want the cash.
This free speech talk is nonsense, just dumb stuff, you should have know better.
petr says
… There are several things wrong with this:
Assuming you mean either “devoted” or “devout”, there is no reason to assume that any given Christian, either devoted or devout, would deliberately give a fake answer under any circumstance.
Secondly there is no reason to automatically assume the decision tree is limited to either a fake answer or an honest answer only. I am a Christian and I consider myself both devoted and devout and my honest answer is that I have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality. That’s because I don’t let the Bible do my thinking for me.
Thirdly, the actual words Phil Robertson spoke, that I have heard/read, really had nothing to do Christian beliefs but rather with Christian traditions, which are separate from beliefs, as well as his own misunderstanding about whether or not a man should be attracted to a vagina versus an anus as though homosexuality were reducible to simple mechanics and anatomy. He is hiding behind his Christianity (which is really just a literal and uncritical reading of the Bible) as cover for his own confusion and inability to understand the emotional and sexual needs of others.
danfromwaltham says
I wish organizations like GLAAD would do the same.
kirth says
Keep feeding the troll, and he’ll keep coming back. There was nothing in this that merited any kind of response. Let it die a deserved and unacknowledged death.
jconway says
I was really excited when I kept checking in her yesterday to not see this anywhere on BMG when I checked in yesterday, let’s continue to follow Kirth’s example and stop dignifying the poster or this faux controversy with a response.
johnk says
please stop. I know i shouldn’t be feeding you. But I did.
If you find a post trollish, then don’t participate. Why are you here?
JimC says
is that we turn on each other.
johnk says
just read what you want. post what you want and ignore what you want. Telling people what to do is what I disagree with.
kbusch says
is self-contradictory.
kbusch says
remarkable for its obtuseness. Come on, johnk, you should know better than that. Have you ignored all the DFTT discussions we had?
johnk says
that I thought it was rather dumb. Please stop this sophomoric non-sense.
kbusch says
You regard debating DFW as not sophomoric?
Really?
danfromwaltham says
But you don’t need my help, you demonstrated before you can handle yourself quite well.
HR's Kevin says
There is absolutely no evidence that ignoring Dan will make him go away. The only way to get rid of him is to ban him.
kbusch says
Requests to ban him have not worked.
Opprobrium certainly doesn’t work.
Doesn’t that leave DFTT as the only available strategy?
HR's Kevin says
Nagging the management might if enough people do it.
mike_cote says
It is painfully funny how every idiot running to defend this POS cries about “Happy Holidays” and “Holiday Trees” and “Holiday Cards”, so screw it:
mike_cote says
Wow, this must be a proud day for DFW. Being on the same page as the Westboro Baptist Wackjobs. Can we expect you to start protesting the funerals of fallen soldiers as well, DAN?
kbusch says
The Westboro Baptist Church has been giving homophobia a bad name since 1991. As walking caricatures, they’ve functioned better than any parody of formerly respectable homophobia could.
Having them “help” could only help.
kbusch says
Blog post:
striker57 says
The wacko from the TV show has a right to free speech and he used it. He got to state his opinion. What he doesn’t have is the right to be free of the consequences of his free speech. Free speech doesn’t mean I have to defend you from reaction. Just that I will defend your right to say it. After that, you’re on your own.
joeltpatterson says
I found great post relevant to the history of Louisiana at Ta-Nehisi Coates’ blog. Coates has a picture of an old newspaper article wherein an African American reporter interviewed Senator Huey Long of LA about the Anti-Lynching bill that Long and other Southern segregationists (and Northern conservatives) filibustered. Definitely a post worth reading.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/phil-robertsons-america/282555/
Peter Porcupine says
There is a constitutional right to free speech. There is NOT a constitutional right to have a TV show.
Stations and channels censor absolute free speech all the time. Decency, controversy, libel – all points of view have had their plug pulled at one point of another.
I read somewhere that Glenn Beck was ready to offer him time on his station, which I think is a perfect solution. Robertson can still speak his mind, and only those who want to listen will hear him.
striker57 says
Just ask the Dixie Chicks!
http://dankennedy.net/2007/02/14/dixie-chicks-and-clear-channel/
danfromwaltham says
They are NOT the parental controls on my television, I am. You will always find some “victim” who is offended by what someone said. Hell, Kanye West can say “Bush doesn’t like black people” yet, wasn’t he at the DNC in 2008?
When any group threatens to target sponsors of shows, they act like little Kim Jong Un’s and we know what the North Korean people get to watch….nothing.
striker57 says
Targeting people that pay the bills is a well proven and effective political. Every heard of the civil rights bus boycott DFW? You don’t have a constitutional right to watch a redneck bigot on TV. Television is about economics not free speech. Hater speaks. Sponsors walk. Show over.
You control what you watch in your house for sure. Alas you don’t control what they broadcast.
Consequences DFW. Consequences. Free speech has them.
But hey, Merry Christmas.
danfromwaltham says
B/c Phil’s views and his views are fairly so close on that issue, no? Both bigots, correct?
Mentioning Rosa Parks, is this a civil rights issue what Phil said? I am sure in his religious mind, he is trying to get everyone to sit in drivers seat so they enter The Kingdom of Heaven.
Patrick says
The Pope is still Catholic. He uses fancier words than Phil but still believes essentially the same, that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered.” And yet he’s Time’s Person of the Year and also the The Advocate’s Person of the Year. Is the outrage at Phil really just that he holds religious beliefs and expressed them in an unsophisticated way? The difference is just the church doctrine versus what filters in the mind of the schlub in the pews.
Patrick says
eom
kbusch says
First off, isn’t Mr. Robertson’s racism more problematic than his homophobia? His defenders might want to think twice about “Christian” views so heavily infused with racism.
Even among those who don’t share a passionate enthusiasm for marriage equality and full equal rights for LGBT citizens, there is a range of views.
Some seem to regard long-term, same sex relationships as just fine but that calling them marriage would harmfully and needlessly loosen the social fabric.
Some seem to think that homosexuality is sinful, but no more sinful than a bunch of things lots of people do every day and, thus, not a cause for alarm but maybe for personally avoiding same sex sexual relations.
There are those who go farther. Some believe the long-refuted canard that male homosexuals are pederasts. Some believe that homosexuals are intrinsically evil and icky, that their presence in a society will bring down the wrath of God or lead to moral decay by making us too accepting of sexual decadence. To such folks, LGBTers should be shunned if not punished.
There’s quite a spectrum.
A lot of people inhabit the wrong side of this issue. I’m not joking when I say that Westboro Baptist Church has been enormously helpful because it’s gotten difficult for the opponents to express more moderate negative views without looking like Topeka, Kansas carpetbaggers. The rabid have done yeoman’s work getting homophobia banned from polite conversation.
I doubt very much that Pope Francis sits on the more toxic end of this spectrum.
Patrick says
That’s what the news originally reported on and what I find most interesting. Of course later someone discovered he said other things in the interview. And further still someone found video of him being more explicit about gays.
He kinda said essentially that in the interview, I think.
Or maybe I’m reading it wrong and he isn’t comparing plain jane sexual promiscuity as equal among all else.
danfromwaltham says
Don’t waste your time…..
kbusch says
This is why DFW lowers the level of discussion. Note my original comment:
Not a word about whether I personally support Flush Rush.
Patrick says
You aren’t, as I understand it, dealing with a bunch of individual radio stations choosing to have Rush based on popularity. You have Clear Channel that owns a large swath of the radio market, rebroadcasting Rush because he is cheaper than doing anything local and new. And he’s just popular enough that it allows the status quo in radio to amble on. I find the whole thing sad and I pine for the days of David Brudnoy and other assorted hosts, who if they tried to enter the game today, probably could not.
kbusch says
I wouldn’t say that.
To me, he is arguing that gay people are bearers of a pernicious moral contagion.
Patrick says
If you are accurately summarizing Phil’s argument that “gay people are bearers of a pernicious moral contagion” how is that substantively different than Catholicism claiming that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered? I’d say it isn’t. And yet one is a Person of the Year, the other is not.
kbusch says
nor possibly are all sins.
jconway says
He endorsed civil unions in Argentina, endorses giving communion to gays, endorsed gay priests and lay gays in leadership ( so long as they are celibate). And has the same position Desmond Tutu did circa 1995. Tutu has since embraced marriage equality in the civil sphere and blessings in the spiritual sphere. If anything, Catholic doctrine recognizes it’s an orientation and not a choice. Phil the poultry purveyor didn’t express nearly as much nuance.
In his America interview the Pope argued the entire church-not just the pope or hierarchy-but all the faithful together-affirm infallible doctrines. It’s up to us progressive Catholics and all people of faith to have the doctrine of love replace doctrines of hate.
danfromwaltham says
Would a homosexual go to heaven if he does not act on his desires, just as Pope Francis allows gays to say mass (so long as he is celibate), I would not be surprised if Phil would say yes. So to me, there is NO DIFFERENCE.
Reading the recent comments from KB and and now you, all I can think about is a thick fog rolling in leaving the readers confused or worse, comments are open for interpretation.
kbusch says
Not because I agree but because your point was well-stated.