If I don't subscribe to your ideology, and can force ATS to ban you, is that right?

DJW001

beezzer
reply to post by DJW001

 

It's not a constitutional issue in so much as it is a societal issue.

We should never be afraid of expression. We can disagree, we can rebut, but we should never look to, or cause by any means, punishment on those with whom we disagree with.

I agree, but that's not exactly what is happening here. By making an outrageous statement, a "reality TV" celebrity has garnered attention in quarters they otherwise might not. Getting fired is just part of the plan. He'll be re-hired, amidst much publicity, in time for the next season.

Perhaps.

But where does one draw the line?

Where do we say, "Oh, it's okay. Those statements were stupid, he's a tv star, so it doesn't matter, but this, THIS does matter. . . . . . . . ?"

reply to post by beezzer


We each draw our own line. There doesn't have to be a universal line which no one is allowed to cross.

Merry Christmas, Beez.

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by beezzer

 

We each draw our own line. There doesn't have to be a universal line which no one is allowed to cross.

Merry Christmas, Beez.

Merry Christmas, BH.

reply to post by BO XIAN

1. IF you include the Religion of Scientism, the Religion of Nihlism, the Religion of Atheism, the Religion of satanism . . . and EXTRINSIC pretend "Christianity," you'd be close to making a tolerably accurate point.

1. Science isn't a religion and Atheism isn't a religion. Satanism is no different from any other religion it is a belief. Read my post again I said

Nothing breeds hate more than religion.

I meant all religion not just Christianity. Don't try to make my post out to be something it isn't I will post what I want to say and what I mean. Just ask the Mods they have given me many warnings for it.

2.0 So your relentless, hostile hate-filled rants against religion and Christianity in general are at best horrifically full or scientific errors. Yet you write as though you were the Pope of philosophical accuracy in such hate-filled regions.

Mind showing me some of these hate filled rants against Christianity? Just because I think Americans should have the right to not have our laws and rights governed by religion I hate it? Yeah that makes sense.

3.0 However, your rants are a prime example of the success of the globalist propaganda machine controlling the media, the educational institutions, Hollyweed, etc. for more than 50 years. You have evidently become a very useful and compliant propagandist for the horrifically inaccurate propaganda from the pit of hell and the heart of tyrannical globalism intent on removing EVERY SHRED OF FREE SPEECH AND INDEPENDENCE AND FREEDOM available across the planet.

So my supporting that America should mind it's own business. Stop attacking nations that haven't attacked America and stop giving away money that it doesn't have shows a support of the Globalist agenda? You do know what the globalist agenda is right? And I support Free Speech, Independence and Freedom more than you ever have on this forum.

beezzer

DJW001

beezzer
reply to post by DJW001

 

It's not a constitutional issue in so much as it is a societal issue.

We should never be afraid of expression. We can disagree, we can rebut, but we should never look to, or cause by any means, punishment on those with whom we disagree with.

I agree, but that's not exactly what is happening here. By making an outrageous statement, a "reality TV" celebrity has garnered attention in quarters they otherwise might not. Getting fired is just part of the plan. He'll be re-hired, amidst much publicity, in time for the next season.

Perhaps.

But where does one draw the line?

Where do we say, "Oh, it's okay. Those statements were stupid, he's a tv star, so it doesn't matter, but this, THIS does matter. . . . . . . . ?"

You have to look at every situation individually. When a person gives their right to Free Speech by signing a contract or joining a forum you have to go by the rules they agreed to.

beezzer
You do realize this was a hypothetical exercise, don't you?

I did. Others in thread didn't. I just wish you'd couched the premise of this in a different way

neformore

beezzer
You do realize this was a hypothetical exercise, don't you?

I did. Others in thread didn't. I just wish you'd couched the premise of this in a different way

Upon reflection, so do I.

reply to post by neformore


Just out of curiosity, can I ask how you would have presented it?

You, too, Beez. How would you present it, knowing what you know now?

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by neformore

 

Just out of curiosity, can I ask how you would have presented it?

You, too, Beez. How would you present it, knowing what you know now?

I may have started with the beauty pageant analogy and looked more into societal inhibitions of free expression that we inflict upon ourselves.

What I tried to do was correlate A&E (ATS), GLAAD (myself), and Phil (Anyone else) to illustrate how messed up I feel that this is.

The real sad thing is that perhaps we don't have so much to fear from government as we do ourselves and what we inflict upon each other (as a society) on a daily basis.

reply to post by beezzer

The real sad thing is that perhaps we don't have so much to fear from government as we do ourselves and what we inflict upon each other (as a society) on a daily basis.

I suspect that's far closer to the case than you, I or most others ever really like to consider or talk about. Government is faceless, so much more comfortable to seek blame in.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by beezzer

 

The real sad thing is that perhaps we don't have so much to fear from government as we do ourselves and what we inflict upon each other (as a society) on a daily basis.

I suspect that's far closer to the case than you, I or most others ever really like to consider or talk about. Government is faceless, so much more comfortable to seek blame in.

Oh I believe government has a face.

Government is like a mirror that only reflects back our most base nature.

beezzer

neformore

beezzer
You do realize this was a hypothetical exercise, don't you?

I did. Others in thread didn't. I just wish you'd couched the premise of this in a different way

Upon reflection, so do I.

You did ok most people understood though some seems to take it personally. Andi do agree we are our biggest threat! In any institution in which a majority of citizens or members can pass laws or rules that apply, not just to themselves, but to all members of the group, judgment is required to distinguish potential laws which are reasonable and fair from those which are tyrannical because they are unnecessary, unfair, and justifiably intolerable to the minority that opposed them. The rights of the many do not outweigh the rights of the few.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I'd just have left ATS out of it and used another analogy.

reply to post by beezzer


Ouch.... That's the real SHARP edge to the We The People... part, huh?

beezzer
This is a thread dedicated to a question that I just got a couple of replies from, but hope to end this whole Duck Dynasty issue.

A couple of caveats.

Did Phil Robertson say something that he believes in?
Yes.

Did A&E have the freedom to fire him?
Yes.

Now answer the question that is the title of the thread.

Of course I have no power to control ATS to ban anyone.

But this speaks to the free exchange of ideas. Does that still exist?

I look forward to the answers.

beez

Come on man. You actually made this "point" into a thread?

Look...Phil's employers, A&E, they own his contract and in accordance with the laws of Louisiana, the place where the show is filmed, a right-to-work state, they fired him. They can fire him for any reason or no reason at all. That's the constitutionally guaranteed right of the employer in Louisiana.
Period.
He had and still has freedom of speech...just not freedom from consequence.
And now, relative to this site, which is PRIVATELY owned...the owners can ban any one of us at anytime for any reason. Is it right? Yes, it is...would I (or anyone) like it? That's open to debate, but it IS the right thing to do because they HAVE that right as owners of this site.

Further more, freedom of speech protects you from Government interference, not the anti-discrimination policies set forth by his employer that he violated.
Freedom of religion means you can practice whatever religion you choose, without government interference.
The government did nothing to stop him from speaking or practicing his beliefs.
His employer dealt with him as any other employer would deal with an employee speaking off color while on the clock and representing their brand. Im pretty sure you signed a similar anti-discrimination policy at your job too - assuming you have a job.

MrPlow
Look...Phil's employers, A&E, they own his contract and in accordance with the laws of Louisiana, the place where the show is filmed, a right-to-work state, they fired him. They can fire him for any reason or no reason at all. That's the constitutionally guaranteed right of the employer in Louisiana.
Period.
He had and still has freedom of speech...just not freedom from consequence.

That is how I understand it as well, he has freedom of speech, but the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee him a camera and microphone to carry that message (just like Alec Baldwin - upset the powers that be and lose your show; Justine Sacco - tweet something your boss does not like and lose job, etc...).

Seems like a contract issue and not a free speech issue, but I admit I have not been following too closely (holidays and work are my priorities this month).

This is the kind of thread that gives me a headache and makes me leave ATS for a few hours, lol. You ask a generalized question, then add a very specific situation. People give you their answers, some of them multiple times and you only reply with such witticisms as "Only answer with yes/no" or "Just one word" which is actually an attempt at limiting our free speech here on this thread. I've read many of your posts and agree with you on a lot but this thread is a bit like getting your teeth pulled at the dentist. You can't start a thread on a subject and then limit everyone to a one word response and then only answer their rebuttals by repeating your initial question over and over and over.

Here's my multi word response. Yes, he has the right to speak without the government interfering on this right. Yes GLAAD had the right to be offended and complain. Yes A&E had the right to ban him as ATS would have that same right...for whatever reason, be it you convincing them to ban me or for me violating T&C. They're both private companies. If some ignorant backwoods neanderthal wants to use an outdated book written by equally ignorant people to justify hate and hate speech then he's just going to have to live with the fact that not everyone is as bigoted as him and there is going to be public backlash at times. I know if I was at work or somewhere representing my work and I used hate speech to attack a whole group of people then I would be fired as well.

Just don't make a thread about Sandy Hook anywhere on this forum and you'll be OK. Sit down, shut up and deny ignorance.

I believe in free speech unconditionally. Anyone can say what they want - how others take it is up to them.

Unfortunately, we live in a society where no one dares take responsibility for themselves and it is always someone elses fault. Thus when someone speaks and others disagree, they fear and want to punish the speaker.

If we are not free to speak without reprival we will never know each other.

Just move Duck Dynasty to the Fox News channel.
He won't get banned from there for making racist, homophobic bigotry remarks.
Otherwise every Fox talking-head will be out of a job.
Problem solved.
I'm sure Paula Deen wants to get back on the air too.