The suspension of Phil Robertson from A&E’s Duck Dynasty is outrageous in a nation that values freedom, according to social critic and openly gay, dissident feminist Camille Paglia.
“I speak with authority here, because I was openly gay before the ‘Stonewall rebellion,’ when it cost you something to be so. And I personally feel as a libertarian that people have the right to free thought and free speech,” Paglia, a professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, said on Laura Ingraham’s radio show Thursday.
“In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as well as they have the right to support homosexuality — as I one hundred percent do. If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right of religious freedom there,” she added.
So in one thread here we have some conservatives arguing for a small business owners right to refuse service to an LGBT couple because homosexuality goes against his religion, yet then I read so many conservative opinions that A&E doesn't have the right to take off the air one of their "employees" whose opinions they vehemently disagree with. So confusing.
FWIW, I agreed that Robertson has the right to express his opinion free from fear of any legal ramifications. I also believe the network has the right to determine what programs and opinions are shown on that network......
Free speech does not mean you are free from the non legal consequences of your words.
PLEASE......Paglia has ALWAYS been polarizing and the original "Going Rogue"....(Palin looks
pathetic next to her).....We have something in common (she voted for Ralph Nader back in the
day)
archer wrote: So in one thread here we have some conservatives arguing for a small business owners right to refuse service to an LGBT couple because homosexuality goes against his religion, yet then I read so many conservative opinions that A&E doesn't have the right to take off the air one of their "employees" whose opinions they vehemently disagree with. ....
Who is arguing that A&E does not have the right to take him off the air? Of course they do. Show me who says otherwise.
archer wrote: So in one thread here we have some conservatives arguing for a small business owners right to refuse service to an LGBT couple because homosexuality goes against his religion, yet then I read so many conservative opinions that A&E doesn't have the right to take off the air one of their "employees" whose opinions they vehemently disagree with. ....
Who is arguing that A&E does not have the right to take him off the air? Of course they do. Show me who says otherwise.
Apparently you haven't been reading Facebook, or the online blogs....sorry if I gave the impression it was someone here, though without reading through an old thread it seems there was some dismay that he was put on hiatus.
Sarah Palin posted a picture on her Facebook page of her with the reality show clan with the message, "Free Speech is an endangered species." She added: "Those 'intolerants' hatin' and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us."
I've not heard one prominent conservative in the media or anywhere say that A&E doesn't have the right to fire the guy from the show. It's also refreshing to see most of the liberals agreeing that he has the right to his opinion based on how he interprets his religion. I do think A&E is pretty weak and hypocritical for taking a faux stand on "principle" and fire Phil, yet has no plan to take the show off the air or cancel the upcoming DD marathon. Because of that, I hope the DD crew tells A&E to pound sand.
It's hard to understand exactly what people are complaining about, at least for me. If conservatives believe that A&E has the legal right to fire Phil, why then accuse the station, and by extension liberals, of not being supportive of free speech. I haven't heard any liberal claim that Phil didn't have the right to say what he did. And certainly liberals, or anyone else including A&E, have the right to disagree. So why the furor over this? Or is it the same with any popular TV show that gets canceled, or changed. We want what we want and don't anyone dare mess with it?
the tv network is a private business - and it has the right (in fact - as a corporation - they have the obligation) to ensure that they can sustain their profits.
When a controversial view threatens profit margins - the network naturally takes action to ensure that controversial view does not enjoy much visibility.
They made a business decision.
I don't think the network is denying his right to free speech --- they're simply ensuring that they don't function as a vehicle for speech they disagree with ---- he still has his freedom of speech.
That said - I despise the fact that the world has become this timid about a simple thought.
bailey bud wrote: the tv network is a private business - and it has the right (in fact - as a corporation - they have the obligation) to ensure that they can sustain their profits.
When a controversial view threatens profit margins - the network naturally takes action to ensure that controversial view does not enjoy much visibility.
They made a business decision.
I don't think the network is denying his right to free speech --- they're simply ensuring that they don't function as a vehicle for speech they disagree with ---- he still has his freedom of speech.
That said - I despise the fact that the world has become this timid about a simple thought.
For once I agree with you. Nobody prevented his "free speech"...But as an employer, the station has the right to decide what they will allow to be seen by advertisers and viewers.
Perhaps the TeaBillies should go back to TeaBaghistan and contemplate Leviticus in the light of shellfish, and wearing blended fabrics, instead of cherry-picking the parts they like to use to bash others.
bailey bud wrote: the tv network is a private business - and it has the right (in fact - as a corporation - they have the obligation) to ensure that they can sustain their profits.
When a controversial view threatens profit margins - the network naturally takes action to ensure that controversial view does not enjoy much visibility.
They made a business decision.
I don't think the network is denying his right to free speech --- they're simply ensuring that they don't function as a vehicle for speech they disagree with ---- he still has his freedom of speech.
That said - I despise the fact that the world has become this timid about a simple thought.
For once I agree with you. Nobody prevented his "free speech"...But as an employer, the station has the right to decide what they will allow to be seen by advertisers and viewers.
