Duck Dynasty Scandalz

As some of you may know, Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson was singled out for media sensationalism because of homophobic comments. I've brought these to light because I'mboredhereatworkI'd like some discussion on it. I'm curious to see what everyone thinks and if anything finds his position defendable; as in, should people be allowed to say this on the air or in interviews and not be suspended from their jobs as TV stars?

For those not immediately aware, here below are some of the comments:

[list]Interviewed for the January issue of GQ, Robertson said he could not understand why a man would choose to sleep with another man, instead of a woman.

"There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying?" he was quoted as telling GQ. "But hey, sin: it's not logical, my man. It's just not logical".

Pressed to give his own definition of sin, he first suggested homosexuality, then added: "Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."

"Don't be deceived," he continued. "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."

Robertson released his own statement through the network calling himself "a product of the 60s".

"I centred my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Saviour.

"My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together."

Former US vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin defended Robertson, tweeting: "Free speech is endangered species; those 'intolerants' hatin' & taking on Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing personal opinion take on us all."[/list]

Phil Robertson is not an actor, politician, sports figure, or any one else we expect to be PC aware. He's a guy on a reality show. I don't agree with his opinion, but he has the right to it. If you don't like his opinion, then don't watch the show. The point of a reality show is the "reality" part.

I can understand that in one way. People on reality TV shows are not bastions of reason and some shows are just hogwash.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Phil Robertson is not an actor, politician, sports figure, or any one else we expect to be PC aware. He's a guy on a reality show. I don't agree with his opinion, but he has the right to it. If you don't like his opinion, then don't watch the show. The point of a reality show is the "reality" part.

My thoughts exactly!

I mean he was asked for his opinion on the matter and he gave it. He wasn't even being derogatory about it. Since when should a person be penalized for having an opinion? If a person can voice that they are in support of homosexuality why can't other voice they are against it? Its one thing to be mean and derogatory about it but its another entirely to answer an interview question.

I have no sympathy for him. When you're in the public eye as much as someone like he is you have to be smart about what you say. We saw something similar with Paula Deen. Said something stupid at some point and it blew up in her face. That's the cost of fame.

That said it seems a lot of people, Palin included, don't understand that free speech is a two way street. He's obviously perfectly free to say whatever he wants, legally speaking. He won't get arrested by the government or anything. However, when he exercises his freedom of speech and says something stupid other people are perfectly within their rights of exercising THEIR freedom of speech to express their feelings that what he said was stupid and disgusting. And his employer is perfectly within their rights to take him off the air as they don't want his viewpoints to be identified with them. That's all that's happening here.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from being criticized when you say something, just means you won't be legally forced to stop saying it.

Originally posted by BackFire

That said it seems a lot of people, Palin included, don't understand that free speech is a two way street. He's obviously perfectly free to say whatever he wants, legally speaking. He won't get arrested by the government or anything. However, when he exercises his freedom of speech and says something stupid other people are perfectly within their rights of exercising THEIR freedom of speech to express their feelings that what he said was stupid and disgusting. And his employer is perfectly within their rights to take him off the air as they don't want his viewpoints to be identified with them. That's all that's happening here.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from being criticized when you say something, just means you won't be legally forced to stop saying it.

Oh good, everything that needs to be said is being said.

Y'all have a lovely day then.

I agree, Backfire basically wrapped this thread up in a red bow.

Agreed with Backfire's sentiments about freedom of speech.

However, as far as him being kicked off the show or something, well. It's reality television. I don't think its fair for him to receive disciplinary action for merely giving his opinion. It's a show about rednecks wandering around the everglades or something. These kinds of sentiments are too be expected.

Furthermore, it is a two way street. 20 years ago, making pro-homosexual comments could probably get you kicked off a show. I don't agree with that either.

I think that should be left up to the network. It's not unreasonable for them to want to distance themselves from such statements. That's all that's going on, they're covering their own ass.

If I may unwrap this thread for just a bit, I actually do have a problem with the media ostracizing and exiling celebrities who say intolerant or bigoted things. Not only does it vindicate those groups that support said intolerance and bigotry, but it also often forces the ostracized celebrities to become more hardline and embrace the reactionary elements of American culture that welcome them with open arms. I think instead of condemning and removing the celebrities, the aim should be to either rehabilitate or tolerate them, unless of course they're spewing outright hatespeech.

I'm just imagining a time in the near future when Paula Deen and Phil Robertson are both on Glenn Beck's network, funded by Chick Fil-A, and it will have the same effect as putting several hardened criminals together in squalid conditions: you get several even more hardened criminals.

Oh, don't anyone take this as a serious argument, I'm typing on an empty stomach and speaking my mind.

I mostly agree. I don't think this kinda thing should be news. When i first read his statements my first thought was "Who gives a shit?" Followed by "Well, he's probably ****ed, now." And that's it.

It's good that people know what he said - same goes for Chick Fil-A or whatever, so that they can use that knowledge to decide if that's a product they want to support or not.

It shouldn't be a national firestorm or anything, though, should essentially be a punch line and nothing else.

I....I...just don't give a shit.

That said, I don't see how it's any different from a person with a 'normal' job saying something on a public forum like Facebook and who has their place of employment visible and getting fired from their job for it. That happens on a daily basis nowadays.

I defend his right to speak his mind. He's being paid for this. It's not like some actor or other performer that chooses to use their fame to stand on a soap box and spew their beliefs and condemn others whom think otherwise. Should these people have fame? Maybe that is the important question...,why are they famous? Usually, when a persons opinion is under such scrutiny it's because they have an important station in life. A position that others hold in high regard. I don't agree with what people watch and find entertaining all the time but there are reasons behind it. I think the thirst for a family message and structure is so overwhelming in this society that people gravitate towards it anywhere they can find it. Either way, it's just one man speaking his beliefs. Agree or disagree that's the position we as the people put him in. As long as there is a dialogue happening I think that's whats most important.

He got fired for being too "reality"

Dang homersexualz are ruining 'Merica!

We are so screwed

NBC owns 50% of A&E

Originally posted by jaden101
I....I...just don't give a shit.

But I don't think he should be kicked off of the show just because he gave his honest opinion on something he was questioned about.

Well, freedom of speech and discrimination obviously have a blurry line between them. On one hand, it's okay to say certain things within the realm of freedom, such as "I hate Ford trucks" or "This sandwich is great" or "I advocate the Nova BullMoose Party". However, when it becomes a point of discrimination against a minority group or another person, rules become involved.

To those who replied above who disagree with his indefinite leave from the show: would you feel any differently if he had spouted off his definition of sin as including say, certain ethnic groups, religions, or nationalities?

Now the family is not going to do the show without the old man. Some other network will pick up the show, and Phil will be back as if nothing ever happened.

This just my fun prediction.