Yes, the pickings are easy
Phil (Duck Dynasty) covered under 1st Amendment?
- Thread starter Catatonic
- Start date
- Status
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
Catatonic
Nine Lives
OK, I finally got one.
No it is not a 1st Amendment issue.
Neither the 1st Amendment nor the 14th Amendment cover anything outside the relationship and punitive actions against an individual citizen by any level of governments.
The first amendment protects citizens from the government from taking any action against them due to what the citizens says ... in particular, if they say something against the government.
Citizens can say anything they want as long as they do not fall within the following:
- Burning draft cards to protest draft — prohibited because of superior governmental interest.
- Words likely to incite imminent violence, termed “fighting words.”
- Words immediately jeopardizing national security.
- Newspaper publishing false and defamatory material — libel.
Lincoln suspended the 1st amendment rights as have other presidents during times of war.
island1fox
Well-Known Member
Your insults used to be so much more clever. The attention is flattering, though
rr,
It is pretty clear what YOU SAID
M
MenInBrown
Guest
It seems as though the comprehension problem is you understanding that people can say what they want to about homosexuals. If someone doesn't agree with it or agree with you, is that a problem? Regardless of his platform, he can say what he believes in. No different that someone advocating for gays in an interview. The only difference is you don't agree with them and you can't make him shut his mouth.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Do you think homosexuality leads to, or is comparable to bestiality? Do you think homosexuals are evil, murderous people? You and Phil are certainly welcome to "believe in" these things, but the network is also welcome to fire someone who "believes in" these things. If you don't agree with them, is that a problem?
I hope the family stays strong and quits the show. Makes room for more First 48.
M
MenInBrown
Guest
My point exactly. No one says you have to agree with him, but when he doesn't agree with you it's hate speech. If he was on TV advocating gays, should people be calling for him to be removed? Bc that disagrees with a lot of people as well. So basically what people are saying is, if you have a platform such as Phil, don't give any interviews or say anything bc it will not totally agree with everyone on the planet, so there for its wrong. That's why it's an issue of first amendment. I could give 2 cents for what he said, but it's the people that think they tell someone what to say when to say and how they should feel that's retarded.
M
MenInBrown
Guest
And also, if you read the interview, he does not refer to homosexuality as or to beastiality. He says it morphs out from homosexuality to beastiality. That means he thinks beastiality is worst than homosexuality.
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
Yep.
Robertson described in the interview how sin is becoming acceptable in America and that the country needs to turn back to its Christian values. "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men," Robertson told GQ. "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers-they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right." The patriarch of the Robertson family said just putting one's faith in Jesus will help problems be solved.
Wait until the greedy,drunken,slandering swindlers get ahold of this.
Guaranteed retribution....
upswife75
Well-Known Member
NO, it isn't an issue of first amendment rights! He is still FREE to say whatever he likes. That hasn't changed. He just has one less platform on which to say it. Now, if what happened to pusillanimous Riot happened here in the US, THEN you could talk about first amendment rights being taken, as they were jailed for their words. Robertson wasn't.
First amendment...I do not think those words mean what you think they mean...
Nimnim
The Nim
The first amendment does not apply here, A&E may or may have acted poorly/overreacted/whatnot but there has been no first amendment violation here. Had the government stepped in because of the interview and detained or arrested him then there'd be a valid claim for the first amendment. At this point Phil Robertson has not been silenced in the least, he just has one less avenue to speak.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
I still see the first amendment getting in this discussion and just for the sake of clarity, here is the actual text of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
I emboldened the first 5 words to make clear who is the one prohibited from impeding speech. Or for that matter, religious thought. The text mentions no one else prohibited in a law making sense.
Seems to me the real question is how far an employer in effect can control and have say over an employee off the actual job? Does anyone know the actual wording in the contract that exists between Phil Robertson and the A&E network on this issue? Being they (A&E) knew of previous comments made by Phil in the same manner as these recently made and did nothing at the time, I'm willing to suspect there are other motives at play here. Phil and A&E may not be the hostile parties to one another that we might think they are.
I emboldened the first 5 words to make clear who is the one prohibited from impeding speech. Or for that matter, religious thought. The text mentions no one else prohibited in a law making sense.
Seems to me the real question is how far an employer in effect can control and have say over an employee off the actual job? Does anyone know the actual wording in the contract that exists between Phil Robertson and the A&E network on this issue? Being they (A&E) knew of previous comments made by Phil in the same manner as these recently made and did nothing at the time, I'm willing to suspect there are other motives at play here. Phil and A&E may not be the hostile parties to one another that we might think they are.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
Brings to mind all the outrage by Coolio when Yankovic parodies Gangsta Paradise.
All the hullabaloo made both songs and artists do better and after it was all over, they were cool with it all.
Yankovic always gets permission before doing a parody and I am sure he had it that time too.
island1fox
Well-Known Member
dido,
Sure lets watch more of the show that most of their episodes involve Black on Black murders.
island1fox
Well-Known Member
dido,
There are many people that believe murder is a sin, bestiality is a sin, adultery is a sin and homosexuality is a sin.
All sins ---one not related or causing another ---feel better about --people have a right to have their beliefs and points of view respected --the same as you do.
Some people believe the sex act between two males is fine --others believe it is vile and disgusting---so what ????
- Status
