(Emphasis mine.) What do civil liberties have to do with Robertson’s being fired? A&E’s decision to fire him is just a response to what the free market wants (or what A&E thinks the free market wants).
ETA: are you referring to the part of the Civil Rights Bill that forced Woolworth’s to serve black people, or something similar?
Which comment, specifically, do you see as calling for Robertson to be denied his civil rights?
Some of your best…err…newphews are gay?
I lol’d.
My biggest concern in all this is that I can’t now buy Under Armor clothes (which I generally like) since they have decided to continue sponsoring the show. And a good friend’s company was bought by UA and I wanted to support them. Oh well, plenty of other companies make good cold weather running gear.
Dostoyevsky, indeed. har har har.
If you have a problem with it, then take it up with Merriam Webster…
civil liberty
noun
: the right of people to do or say things that are not illegal without being stopped or interrupted by the government
How do you feel about the racist and xenophobic comments? Were they ok in your mind? Were African Americans really better off before civil rights legislation? Is it true that Christians societies can do no wrong while other religions are evil? Do you think it’s OK to assault women and not apologize, because you’re a Christian, and thus don’t need to?
I didn’t realize that A&E was the government now. Geeze, they’ve really expanded… I thought the SciFi channel showing wrestling was bad!
Unless I missed some rather major shift in US politics, the Arts and Entertainment Network is not “the government”.
what little I read, there was nothing about civil rights. Frankly, I’m not much interested in this whole thing.
as noted- take it up with Merriam-Webster, or did you miss this part…
Freedom from arbitrary interference in one’s pursuits by individuals or by government.
Nit pick or spin it how you want to.
I don’t have a problem. I just asked a question. Simplico seems to be wondering about the same. Perhaps you’ll respond to him in a nicer way.
Short version: Opposing bigotry is bigoted against bigots.
Yet again.
I never saw that article. Thanks for the link.
The Devil’s Advocate’s position here can be strengthened by changing the above to, “Opposing bigotry at the national media level silences bigots, and it’s scary for what few media conglomerates that there are to have the power to silence anyone so thoroughly.”
ETA: this line of reasoning might justify gay people’s siding with Robertson despite their profound disagreements, within the reasonable limit that his stated bigotry isn’t violent in nature.
Why the need to invent things to smear Phil with? Why can’t we focus on what he actually said without twisting his statements beyond recognition?
Phil didn’t say this. He never mentioned civil rights legislation at all in the quote you are referring to. (Unless there’s another one that hasn’t been posted to the thread.)
He was making the completely valid point that blacks were better off “pre-entitlement, and pre-welfare”. This is true. The welfare state resulted in the destruction of black families and they are certainly not better off for it.
He never said Christian societies can do no wrong. You just made that up.
I agree that he’s off base with his thoughts on lack of Jesus being the problem with the Nazis or the communists. But as an atheist I think it is a valid concern that atheist governments don’t have a great track record.
He paid them off with his life savings. They took the money. He turned his life around and improved as a person. What else would you have him do?
Mis-representing this so badly is just silly. It smacks of desperation.
Yeah. So what if holding opinions like that potentially alienates your own children from what is one of the last and most important support networks available. So what if it teaches them to hate, and teaches them that it’s not okay to be who you are. Who cares? They’re just fine otherwise. They have guns!
“Camille Paglia nails it.”
This woman compares a network suspending an actor for saying offensive, hateful crap to Stalinist censorship. Magellan, I thought you were a little better than this.
Ugh. You know, even if she weren’t talking about homphobic bigotry, and rather was simply talking about something that is just embarrassing for the network, she’d be the type of overreactionary harpy that screams “SOCIALISM” at the slightest whiff of any government program to help the average person. “Stalinist”? Really? A network suspended one of the people working for it because they said something many people (rightfully) found extremely offensive. That’s not dictatorial PC. That’s not even censorship. That’s a company either appealing to its own conscience or simply trying to make the right decision in the free market. You know, things that right-wingers are usually willing to sacrifice all else for, unless it has to do with supporting social equality for LGBTQs. Although to be fair, at this point it seems like saying “fuck homosexuals” is a good business decision in America. Fucking abhorrent.
And you know what? Yeah, pro-gay-rights advocates aren’t particularly big on the whole “hearing the other side” thing. Why? Because the other side is against providing homosexuals with the same tolerance and basic human rights that the rest of us get. And there’s nothing wrong with that. You don’t need to put up with the KKK member who thinks blacks should have less rights because of reasons. There is no need to be tolerant of intolerance.
Look, it just so happens that the full spectrum of human belief contains things which are fucking horrifying, and there’s nothing “juvenile” about being intolerant of the nastier parts. There is no room for dialog about whether or not gay people deserves to have the same rights as the rest of us. But the fact is simply that Roberton’s suspension has nothing to do with free speech. Literally nothing, regardless of how retarded the Bobby Jindals and Camille Paglias of the world may be. To turn this into a discussion about freedom of speech and acceptance of ideas in the public view is dishonest and deplorable, and I can tell you right now exactly why they do it: because they don’t have the balls to say openly what this is really about: “I agree with the statements Robertson made and do not believe that there should be repercussions for saying things like that”. Because this is always about the gays. It’s always about the things these people already believe in. And they don’t have the common decency to stand by their fucking disgusting convictions. I believe that you would fall for it, and genuinely believe this crap. But these people? Not a snowball’s chance in hell I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt.
That isn’t the definition you quoted, so I’m not sure its an issue of my missing anything.
But in anycase, a private network deciding they don’t want to air a show because one of the stars insulted a large demographic isn’t a violation of anyone’s civil liberties. There is no right to be free of the consequences of your speech.
I think its a stretch to say anyone has been “silenced thoroughly” here. I suspect a far larger number of people have heard Robertson’s quote then have ever watched his show, which is sort of the opposite of “silent”. And assuming A&E doesn’t take him back, he’ll probably end up as a frequent guest on Fox and other conservative media shows, so I doubt there’s been much damage to his future livelihood or ability to make himself heard either.
I give you extra points for trying to come up with an original argument instead of the usual boring first amendment ones though.
OK – here goes my neck but ----------- I think I understand where he’s coming from on that one. He was white trash pretty much like some of us and from that standpoint we really * didn’t* see it. The separate bathrooms and counters were in the cities and towns which were like the moon to many of us; you saw it in the distance but you could only dream of what it was like there. For us, we all pissed behind the same trees and blistered the same way. Even once we came “to town” it was basically in the ghettos so the Jim Crow effects weren’t all that visible at first. It wasn’t until one of us made it to college that all of a sudden we found out what things really were like. That made a difference - major difference - to all of us.
For all the money their company made, long before the show, I don’t know if Phil has yet to see “the moon”. See the US as it really was. Clearly he doesn’t see it as it is today. So that he still looks at all of us as having been “happy Godly field hands” together doesn’t shock me any. Sadden a little but no big surprise.
This does make me curious about one thing though -------- take the folks from “Axemen” or “Deadliest Catch” or “Devils Ride” or any of the other so-called reality shows. Anyone want to bet there is at least one “Phil” in each cast?
He also never said anything about “the destruction of black families,” but you seem to have inferred that that’s what he had in mind when he was complaining about entitlements. Seems only reasonable that others can also make their own inferences about what he had in mind.
I’ve seen several people (although no one serious) suggest that it’s a violation of Title VII. I assume that reality show participants aren’t “employees,” but I guess I don’t know that for sure. (I would also expect there to be some sort of exception for performers – I mean, I can’t sue for not being cast as Othello on the basis of my race, can I? – but I have no idea).