Free speech for one and fire the other?
Why is that do you think?
Why do you want one to be protected with free speech and the other fired because of that same free speech?
![reindeersleigh](images/smilies/reindeer-sleigh-smiley-emoticon.gif)
That's easy - One of them was encouraging sick behavior (defecating into someone's mouth) while the other was expressing disapproval and disgust of sick behavior (gay anal sex).Yea, I'd like to take a dump in your gay ass mouth!
Aren't both free speech issues? Aren't both employee/employer issues with regard to being fired?
Is your approval of the speech the key to your free speech?
Of course, there is no difference to WTFagboy since he likes to engage in both activities. Originally Posted by lustylad
Yea, I'd like to take a dump in your gay ass mouth!I think Bashir should have been able to keep his job. Those that took offense could simply watch something else. Those that agree with him could continue to watch.
I have no different view of Bashir than I do of Phil the duck man. Say wtf ever you want and then take your medicine like a man. My question is why some of you bitch about Phil being put on hold, yet called for Bashir to be fired? That seems convoluted to me. Please help me understand those two different positions.
Originally Posted by WTF
I think Bashir should have been able to keep his job. Those that took offense could simply watch something else. Those that agree with him could continue to watch.Yes it is, well put...my question is more to the folks who called for Bashir to be fired and are crying about this Duck Dynasty flap. People like JD and Whirly.
The same goes for Phil Robertson. If people are offended by his remarks, simply watch something else. For those that want to continue watching, that is their choice.
If MSNBC found that keeping Bashir on cost too much, then he would suffer the same fate as multitudes of other Television shows, cancelled because of poor ratings.
If A&E found that they were loosing too much money airing Duck Dynasty, they could simply cancel it because of poor ratings as well.
Isn't that the way the system is supposed to work in the entertainment industry? Originally Posted by Jackie S
That's easy - One of them was encouraging sick behavior (defecating into someone's mouth) while the other was expressing disapproval and disgust of sick behavior (gay anal sex). Originally Posted by lustyladCheck the internet, one person's "sick" is another person's fetish. But I am so glad you have stood up to be the standard setter and enforcer of morals. Good for you--you pompous egotist.
I think Bashir should have been able to keep his job. Those that took offense could simply watch something else. Those that agree with him could continue to watch.
The same goes for Phil Robertson. If people are offended by his remarks, simply watch something else. For those that want to continue watching, that is their choice.
If MSNBC found that keeping Bashir on cost too much, then he would suffer the same fate as multitudes of other Television shows, cancelled because of poor ratings.
If A&E found that they were loosing too much money airing Duck Dynasty, they could simply cancel it because of poor ratings as well.
Isn't that the way the system is supposed to work in the entertainment industry? Originally Posted by Jackie S
Bashir's remarks were premeditatedly scripted for a purported news broadcast -- not entertainment.Nope. They are showing they think that move gives them the most leverage. Though I do like that the whole group is sticking together. There is no reason to think they are doing it for the reasons you state--and I have no idea why you think you know their "true" feelings--oh, I know, EVERY TV personality is ALWAYS 100% honest in interviews, and NEVER says something that stretches the truth. He should have said whatever he wished to, it should be a non-story, he should not be fired for it, and they should go back to making TV shows I hope I never have to watch again. If lots of Bubbas like the show because it reaches their center, good for them.
Right. So free speech only applies in unscripted situations? There is no premeditated free speech? And of course no news station has opinionated commentary, only hard provable facts.
Robertson's remark was an unscripted response to a question in a personal interview and not as part and parcel of the show from which he was dismissed. Further, nothing Robertson said justified Huffy's vitriolic banner headline: "'Duck Dynasty' Star Makes Shockingly Vile Anti-Gay Comments."
"Part and parcel of the show from which he was dismissed" has nothing to do with it, but I agree his comments were far from "Shockingly Vile". He expressed his opinion, which should be completely allowed--as should have been Bashir's--though I disagree with both.
The majority of Americans still reject homosexuality as a personal life style for themselves; in fact, some 40% still consider homosexuality "shockingly vile." Yet, "surprise, surprise," a religious southern man rejects homosexuality as a lifestyle and that becomes front page news. This whole issue is nothing more than lib-retarded hyperbole. It would have been a real story had Robertson said he endorsed homosexuality!
Disagree. This is politicized by both sides. I don't think a TV "star's" opinions on much of anything should be newsworthy. Certainly not headline worthy. The fact that we keep putting these people up as brilliant role models, or as vile evil geniuses, is the real problem. Charles Barkley was absolutely right.
Finally, it took MSNBC almost two weeks before they acted to accept Bashir's "resignation" -- he never was "fired"; whereas, A&E acted within 24 hours and dismissed Phil Robertson. There's definitely bias there. A&E had the right to make that call as a business decision, but it appears the Robertsons are putting the screws to A&E. It appears that the Robertsons are telling A&E to accept the whole family with its inherent values, or they will go elsewhere. By doing this, the Robertsons are showing that their values are real and not affected for the superficial entertainment of others. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
I think Bashir should have been able to keep his job. Those that took offense could simply watch something else. Those that agree with him could continue to watch.Spot on.
The same goes for Phil Robertson. If people are offended by his remarks, simply watch something else. For those that want to continue watching, that is their choice.
If MSNBC found that keeping Bashir on cost too much, then he would suffer the same fate as multitudes of other Television shows, cancelled because of poor ratings.
If A&E found that they were loosing too much money airing Duck Dynasty, they could simply cancel it because of poor ratings as well.
Isn't that the way the system is supposed to work in the entertainment industry? Originally Posted by Jackie S
Right. So free speech only applies in unscripted situations? There is no premeditated free speech? And of course no news station has opinionated commentary, only hard provable facts. Your inability to discern between the role of journalism and purpose of entertainment TV is unfathomable. That that difference escapes you is not surprising..
"Part and parcel of the show from which he was dismissed" has nothing to do with it, but I agree his comments were far from "Shockingly Vile". He expressed his opinion, which should be completely allowed--as should have been Bashir's--though I disagree with both. Venue and premeditation are very relevant to this issue. Bashir's remarks were premeditatedly scripted: prescreened and approved by others before he went on the air. With malice aforethought, Bashir's remarks were the very definition of vile and disgusting. Nevertheless, the producer(s), et al, let him go forward and say them anyway. His remarks reflected the dogmatic, lib-retarded values of the show that aired his remarks; hence, those remarks were more than a "personal opinion": his remarks were "institutional" and aired after due deliberation. Meanwhile, it was GQ that asked for the interview, proposed the questions, which Robertson answered honestly, and it was GQ that chose to print those answers. The venue and the questions were externally imposed upon Robertson. The only thing Robertson did was agree to answer the questions honestly and without premeditated malice. GQ controlled every facet of the Robertson interview, except the honest answers. Bashir maliciously controlled everything he and his producers aired.
Disagree. This is politicized by both sides. I don't think a TV "star's" opinions on much of anything should be newsworthy. Certainly not headline worthy. The fact that we keep putting these people up as brilliant role models, or as vile evil geniuses, is the real problem. Charles Barkley was absolutely right. Suggest you direct your remarks towards GQ. For some reason, a reason unperceived by you, they were of the opinion Robertson was a worthy interview.
Nope. They are showing they think that move gives them the most leverage. Though I do like that the whole group is sticking together. There is no reason to think they are doing it for the reasons you state--and I have no idea why you think you know their "true" feelings--oh, I know, EVERY TV personality is ALWAYS 100% honest in interviews, and NEVER says something that stretches the truth. He should have said whatever he wished to, it should be a non-story, he should not be fired for it, and they should go back to making TV shows I hope I never have to watch again. If lots of Bubbas like the show because it reaches their center, good for them. Who are you? The Miss Cleo of a SHMB? You're the one making unfounded assumptions and imagine to know the Robertson's "true feelings." The Robertsons stated why they are doing what they are doing; nevertheless, you mean to deny their pronounced intent without even a shred of substantive proof to support your contrary position.
Originally Posted by Old-T
i.b. hankering.....A&E suspended Robertson "indefinitely" mere hours after the interview was made public; whereas, Bashir continued to broadcast for two weeks before MSNBC took action. Robertson is saying he wasn't trying to offend anybody or group, but he and his family are standing by their beliefs.
has robertson been terminated from employment....i thought he was on hiatus...
robertson is also trying to walk back his remarks.... Originally Posted by stevepar
WTF is the difference?I thought Martin Bashir's comments were pretty ignorant and disgusting, but I also didn't think he should have had to resign over them either. I believe in freedom of thought, and freedom of expression, regardless of whether or not I like what someone has to say.
Free speech for one and fire the other?
Why is that do you think?
Why do you want one to be protected with free speech and the other fired because of that same free speech?
Originally Posted by WTF