RE: Free speech? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Apocalypso -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 4:55:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Protecting its product? Do you really think that gay-rights activists were its core audience?

It's not only activists that would be potentially offended by his opinions. Way more importantly, advertisers hate being associated with controversy in any way, shape or form.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
No they didn't. He resigned, several days after the incident.


Shortly after a meeting with the MSBNC president. So I think there's at least a high chance he was 'invited' to jump before he was pushed.

And that's despite the fact that Bashir apologised, so if you want it to be a close analogy Robertson would need to do the same.



Politesub53 -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 5:09:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

What do you think about A&E's decision to shitcan Phil Robertson of "Duck Dynasty" for his (religious) views on homosexuality?
I think they're wrong, he has the right to his own opinion.
It's all about tolerance.
I wonder if Phil were a muslim, would they be so quick to condemn him?



Lmfao....... Yep Robertsons obnoxious views were full of tolerance. [8|]

That said, I think you will find this is more a case of capitalism at its finest with the TV company protecting its product, more than being outraged at his comments.


Protecting its product? Do you really think that gay-rights activists were its core audience?


Lmfao...... Do you really think one has to be gay to find Robertsons comments offensive....... Sad, really really sad. [8|]



Moonhead -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 5:23:32 AM)

Maybe it was a snide attempt at stealth gay bashing?
You know: "those gays aren't into manly outdoor pursuits like hunting, who cares if the spokeschav for a duck call company disses them?" sort of thing.



Kana -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 6:23:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

What do you think about A&E's decision to shitcan Phil Robertson of "Duck Dynasty" for his (religious) views on homosexuality?
I think they're wrong, he has the right to his own opinion.
It's all about tolerance.
I wonder if Phil were a muslim, would they be so quick to condemn him?

Thoughts:

1-The man is a southern fundamentalist preacher. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what his perspective was prior to asking the question.
Which brings up a side point-why ask such a loaded question unless it was a sandbag by the reporter?
2-Phil has been talking about leaving the show for months. He's had people trespass on his property,privacy invaded, doesn't like the way the show is edited and/or care for the way such editing by A&E paints his family.
I think there's a large chance the network just got country slickered-Phil may well have found a way to break contract that lays all blame on the network.
3-I'm gonna defy all logic and sense and quote Voltaire in a Duck Dynasty
forum:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

And why, oh why, is does everyone fail to be tolerant of others intolerance's?
And the self righteous most of all




DaddySatyr -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 6:35:27 AM)

As Rich alluded to:

His boss suspended him for "damaging the brand". It's no different than when Whoopie Goldidiot got shit-canned from (SlimFast?) for her pranks at the fundraiser where she made sexually lewd jokes about a president's last name.

No government agents are knocking on the guy's door. No federal prosecutors are preparing a list of indictments.

"Freedom of speech" is only something that refers to people being free from prosecution. We always have to keep our bosses happy or we run the risk of being unemployed. There's no constitutional protection against that.



Peace,



Michael



tj444 -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 6:51:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

What do you think about A&E's decision to shitcan Phil Robertson of "Duck Dynasty" for his (religious) views on homosexuality?


as I understand it, he was suspended due to the morality clause in his contract (to not do/say anything to damage the brand/show)..

This is my intolerant personal view on that show.. I think all of them are idiots and I think anyone that spends their time watching this kinda shite is an idiot.. (but that goes for many other reality shows on tv now also).. just seeing their pics makes my skin crawl..

There is now an automatic phone dialer calling people (Republicans?) to tell them to call a number (I guess A&E's number) & demand he be brought back.. what crap!.. but thank gawd they (intolerant Repubs) didn't put that kinda effort into getting Romney elected.. he mighta actually won had they done that.. [;)] [:D]



MsMJAY -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 8:00:52 AM)

I am very much in support of free speech, but I cannot deny the fact that hate speech against the LGBT community has contributed to discrimination, violence and murder of members of that community. This type of speech is often done by Christians who make statements denigrating homosexuals and then hide behind the Bible. I know the Bible says in Leviticus 20:13 that its okay and even God ordained to murder gay people. Its STILL WRONG and its not something that ought to be said in public without repercussions. No matter how desperately Christians try to convince the world that "its not us - its GOD that hates homosexuality" hate speech is still hate speech and religious beliefs do not make it okay. Invoking God into it only makes it worse because then fools have the conviction and knowledge that their bigotry is supported by God.



TheHeretic -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 8:34:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

I am very much in support of free speech, but



There is no "but," MsMJay. You are either on the bus, or you are off the bus. If you do not support freedom of speech when you despise what is being said, then you do not support freedom of speech at all.



EdBowie -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 8:44:36 AM)

Irrational thinking. 'But' usually negates what went before. In this case it serves as a divider between consequences of free speech.

Just out of curiosity, where did you get that meme that if someone is opposed to speech inciting the lynching of gay and black people, they aren't supporting free speech? Did you originate it? Because I get the feeling that I've seen it somewhere else...



quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

I am very much in support of free speech, but



There is no "but," MsMJay. You are either on the bus, or you are off the bus. If you do not support freedom of speech when you despise what is being said, then you do not support freedom of speech at all.




tj444 -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 8:49:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

I am very much in support of free speech, but


There is no "but," MsMJay. You are either on the bus, or you are off the bus. If you do not support freedom of speech when you despise what is being said, then you do not support freedom of speech at all.

was it a free speech issue or was it a contract violation issue? these people are well-to-do, I expect they had lawyers tell them the do's & don'ts when they signed.. sure the dude can have his free speech moment-of-fame, but its also the tv networks right to suspend or can his ass (for violating the contract).. they both have the right to do what they did.. which is why the Duck(s) have been trying to put pressure on the network to reverse its decision (I hope the network doesn't capitulate)..



MsMJAY -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 8:54:09 AM)

So if there is no but you are saying that child pornography should be a protected form of free speech, correct? No buts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

I am very much in support of free speech, but



There is no "but," MsMJay. You are either on the bus, or you are off the bus. If you do not support freedom of speech when you despise what is being said, then you do not support freedom of speech at all.




searching4mysir -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 8:57:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

So if there is no but you are saying that child pornography should be a protected form of free speech, correct? No buts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

I am very much in support of free speech, but



There is no "but," MsMJay. You are either on the bus, or you are off the bus. If you do not support freedom of speech when you despise what is being said, then you do not support freedom of speech at all.





Child porn isn't "speech" in the first place.



MsMJAY -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 9:02:25 AM)

Freedom of speech includes written and artistic work. Including paintings and photography.

quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

So if there is no but you are saying that child pornography should be a protected form of free speech, correct? No buts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

I am very much in support of free speech, but



There is no "but," MsMJay. You are either on the bus, or you are off the bus. If you do not support freedom of speech when you despise what is being said, then you do not support freedom of speech at all.





Child porn isn't "speech" in the first place.




TheHeretic -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 9:05:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

So if there is no but you are saying that child pornography should be a protected form of free speech, correct? No buts.



Nope. The right to swing a fist stops at the tip of someone else's nose, and what you describe (way to leap to the extreme example, BTW) involves a violation of a whole different sort against another. I will support the right of NAMBLA members to hold their conventions, though.

The "fire in a crowded theater" rule is a good one, and there is a line that can be crossed from free speech into something else when it comes to threats and direct incitements to violence. Otherwise, the answer to free speech used badly is more speech.



ThatDaveGuy69 -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 9:09:43 AM)

I'm not sure this isn't a thinly veiled plan to get out of the contract with A&E. The family was very wealthy long before the TV show. Maybe they want to go back to not have TV cameras follow them everywhere.

In any case, free speech refers to the government restricting what you can say - there was no government involvement here. Both A&E and GQ are privately owned companies and they get to decide who and what is portrayed in/on their respective media. Their 1st priority is to the shareholders and that means not losing any advertisers. I can't say for sure but it seems to me more people in the US support the LGBT community than do not. This sort of retrograde-low-tech-Chevy-Vega thinking is no longer acceptable.



MsMJAY -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 9:22:59 AM)

Then you agree that there is indeed a "but" to free speech. Our individual opinions on where that line is drawn may be different but we all know that there IS a line. And I never said that repercussions had to be of a legal nature. Social ones tend to work very well in the case of celebrities.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

So if there is no but you are saying that child pornography should be a protected form of free speech, correct? No buts.



Nope. The right to swing a fist stops at the tip of someone else's nose, and what you describe (way to leap to the extreme example, BTW) involves a violation of a whole different sort against another. I will support the right of NAMBLA members to hold their conventions, though.

The "fire in a crowded theater" rule is a good one, and there is a line that can be crossed from free speech into something else when it comes to threats and direct incitements to violence. Otherwise, the answer to free speech used badly is more speech.




Apocalypso -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 9:37:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
Nope. The right to swing a fist stops at the tip of someone else's nose, and what you describe (way to leap to the extreme example, BTW) involves a violation of a whole different sort against another. I will support the right of NAMBLA members to hold their conventions, though.

What about computer generated child porn?



TheHeretic -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 9:44:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

Then you agree that there is indeed a "but" to free speech. Our individual opinions on where that line is drawn may be different but we all know that there IS a line. And I never said that repercussions had to be of a legal nature. Social ones tend to work very well in the case of celebrities.


What a dumbass response! Response with more speech isn't a limit. Social repercussions are how free speech works.

And no, I am not agreeing, so please try reading what I said again. There is no "but."

You are on the bus, or you are off the bus.



Moonhead -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 9:45:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

So if there is no but you are saying that child pornography should be a protected form of free speech, correct? No buts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

I am very much in support of free speech, but



There is no "but," MsMJay. You are either on the bus, or you are off the bus. If you do not support freedom of speech when you despise what is being said, then you do not support freedom of speech at all.





Child porn isn't "speech" in the first place.

It also breaks a few laws, which makes the whole "free speech" argument about it utterly spurious.
Don't even get me started on people who try to muddy the waters about broadcasting standards enough to try to make an equivalence between mainstream media output that they find offensive and sneakily distributed evidence of illegal activities. That isn't so much sophistry as deceitful lying bullshit, frankly.



Moonhead -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 9:46:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apocalypso


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
Nope. The right to swing a fist stops at the tip of someone else's nose, and what you describe (way to leap to the extreme example, BTW) involves a violation of a whole different sort against another. I will support the right of NAMBLA members to hold their conventions, though.

What about computer generated child porn?

Is there any?



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625