Phil is suspended from the Duck Dynasty by A&E. Phil was asked certain questions in an interview, he gave his opinion in a respectful manner. Do you agree with the decision by the network or is free speech taken away?
sort by best latest
His only crime is that he put his foot in his mouth ... he had a right no matter how ignorant the way he put it lol
Correct. I WASN'T surprised at Mr. Robinson's statement.
I repeat: The Robertsons are NOT "backwoods country bumpkins." Phil originally entered college on a Football Scholarship, but turned it down, bcuz he preferred to duck hunt. To LOOK & LIVE differently than us does not equate to Morons. Read BIOS
Every time he has been asked, he says that he loves all the people. He didn't make a negative or bad comment toward the people. Phil said that he doesn't agree with the lifestyle. Does he not have the right to answer honestly when asked a question?
Of course, he does.
Yes he has the right but his employer has rights just as well. Even children know what not to say to stay out of trouble with their parents. Anyone who could cost their employer potentially millions of dollars in revenues should know better.
Of course, he's got the right to say it. By the same token the TV network he appears on has the right to protect its a$$.
...and I have the right to find the whole thing silly. It must be a really slow news day for this story to get such traction.
I agree with thomas you. he was simply expressing his opinion about the lifestyle. Every one has a right to their own beliefs but it seems the only ones allowed to openly express their lifestyle are those who support gay rights
I agree, except for calling an unpopular opinion, bad behavior. It's not. A&E could care less what his opinion is, but they do care how it will effect their advertisers that financially support them. It's a business decision. Nothing more. Noth l
Very mature approach ... freedom isspeech is the most important aspect of our society ... to lose it would be devasting to a FREE people. Thanks for your input
IDONO - If there is a clause against speaking on controversial subjects whilst representing A+E, then it could be simplified as 'bad behaviour" knowingly going against the contract. Otherwise, I agree but I understand it also
JlPark...... If you were doing an interview for a magazine and they asked you the same question would you be honest? "OF COURSE" you would. You would be defending your beliefs honestly, I GUARANTEE YOU THAT!! Exactly as Phil did. Contract or not.
I agree 100% with you. If you are employed by a company, you must adhere to their policies or face being fired. Like it or not the company you work for is not a democracy.
JThom....EXACTLY. He was just being honest. The only other thing he may have done was say he chose not to discuss particular topics in an interview. He's an uncomplicated gentle man who doesn't hurt people intentionally.
JThomp - I sign contracts for my job knowing if I bring the profession into disrepute, even in my 'off time", i can be struck off. So i don't do those things. My contracts as a nurse differ from Phils, but a contract is a contract
Differing opinions often help people to further their knowledge - allowing them to learn from another + vice versa. Stopping that as we do now is stifling growth. If he hasn't broken contract - then yes i agree, just stop watching. Simple really!
I think that is what the network is afraid of, that they will lose viewers unless they do something about it. But something tells me that this show isn't watched largely by the demographic he offended.
ChristinS, you are correct. As a reporter who depended on freedom of speech & press, I know people have a right to their opinions. They can be restricted by contracts. The client-doctor-clergy privilege is a prime example of restricting free spee
1st of all, the dixie chicks were not wrongfully fired. 2nd Phil's beliefs were well known be4 he was hired, so he cannot be fired for saying them.
it was a publicity stunt by A&E as for the dixie chicks point being everyone calling for their heads for stating a belief - the same types of people who defend this fellow - it's hypocritical.
There is a huge divide between Phil and the Dixie Chicks. They were verging on treason by hurling propaganda against their president while on foreign soil and to foreigners. Phil stated his philosophical belief. DC were inciting anti-Americanism.
Christin, 1st how do u know who backed the dixie chicks and duck dynasty? any answer from u would b a guess/assumption. 2nd, u r assuming it was a publicity stunt as if u were n the meeting? Do u work 4 A&E? 3rd, the dixie chicks didn't get fired
Their fans decided they no longer wanted to be fans. Dixie Chicks chose that fate. They knew who their fans were. AND we were at war and they were viscously attacking their president. Big difference here. Phils fans are his fans. A&E were bigoted
and this guy is promoting bigotry. Saying you are ashamed of the president is hardly treasonous. You all prove the point. It's only a "freedom of speech" issue when its someone you agree with. He wasn't fired, he was "suspended"
If u r going to haggle over a word, then fine; the dixie chicks were not "suspended". There, u happy? BTW, just because u don't agree with his opinion does not mean he is being bigoted. Fact is that if he did anything wrong, he wld still b suspended
Christin.... you are right. This was just another knit pick ploy by the gay community to have something to run their mouths about. But, Praise God look who prevailed. Phil and his beliefs prevailed this time.
Actually, when on foreign soil during war time it is considered treasonous to defame the president. Iy is considered aid and comfort to the enemy. Phil was asked about his thoughts, he gave them and A&E reprimanded him. DC’s audience left them.
Christin said:"You all prove the point. It's only a "freedom of speech" issue when its someone you agree with."
Again, u r making assumptions. U have no idea who I have agreed w/ b4.Technically U haven't even asked me. U just put words n my mouth.
true, but the network knew about their life and beliefs prior to hiring them. to suspend someone now just because they do not agree does not seem fair to me. I believe in always answering honestly. What else do u think he could have done?
It's not that they did not know about their life. It's just that he put his opinion out there. TV shows make their money from advertisers. If advertisers withdraw their sponsorship everyone loses out. Cash is king!
TV shows make their money from advertisers based on Neilson ratings, the amount of viewers. It is a two edged sword, A&E was not counting on the backlash from the viewers. Duck Dynasty will be on somewhere and the advertising dollars will follow.
If you are being paid to represent a brand, you have a contractual obligation to say nothing that would tarnish that brand. More that one celebrity has lost an endorsement contract for out of place comments or actions.
Why would anyone throw anything at you? It’s all just reversing the bigotry these days. It’s ok for people to call a Christian man bigoted names but not for that man to say e believes what the bible says. Isn’t that just unfair?
I always thought A&E could do better. I am a native and resident of Louisiana. I have never watched the show, but I do not watch any reality show, since there is nothing real about them. The best thing A&E ever had was its Biography series.
Depends on what is in his contract. If he signed it, and it has a clause in it that he has broken then they have every right to suspend him. If he broke it after signing it (even if he didn't read it) it's on him. If there is no contract, it's them
Including his whole life and everywhere he goes? This was an independent interview with a magazine. Nothing to do with the show whatsoever.
It is their platform, they can establish any criteria they like. A "morals clause" is fairly common in such contracts (whether is is the case here, who knows), but they are intended to protect an agent from being tainted by a character's disrepute.
When you represent a show, and your image is identified with that show, there is an implied restriction that has been upheld in court many times.
Yes.. You might call him a scholar. He has an MD. And is a very intelligent man. What really bothers me is when people make assumptions and have no idea of whom or what they are talking about.
Scholar at your level, not mine.
JT, you're WRONG. He does not have an MD. He has a Masters Degree in Education and was a teacher. Please get YOUR facts straight, JT.
Regardless... He is more successful than you or any one of us will be. He is a very intelligent person and a "FINE" Christian man.
max....I believe you may have swallowed your foot. These men(Phil, in particular) have all graduated college and are quite INTELLIGENT. Do not let their down-home lifestyle delude you. "Red neck" is not an insult, but a compliment to some.
You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.
I lost my job of 22 years in 2010. My separation agreement has a clause stating that I would make no comments to damage the reputation of the company. I do not wish to do that. I did not like being dismissed, but the work of the company is solid.
Larry - sorry to hear you lost your job. If the company separated you based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin then they broke the law. A&E has not been damaged by Phil's statements but did discriminate by suspending him.
I believe it is his religious belief from his bible, although I could be wrong about why he believes the way he does, since I have not heard all the details concerning that. I am just assuming.
I remember a time when homosexuals were beat and even murdered for their sexual preferences. For the most part, this tragedy is isolated and rare ... now all you have to worry about is negative commentaries? Wow! Rise above it and be happy ...
His show is on E TV. Free speech is alive and well. No one got arrested. If a TV station is afraid of losing millions of adverting $ they're going to seek to protect themselves. If you disagree with your boss it's often best to remain $ilent.
Laramy -please don't lump all gays together, it's offensive when done to Christians so why continue it?. I am all for free speech including Phil's. He likely broke contract, so is being dealt with accordingly. He can say what he likes at home.
jlPark--An excellent answer that sums up the situation.
You are absolutely right but given the fact that he is in the public light don't you think he could have expressed his opinion a little more tactfully, maybe included something like what he said later in his answer to complainants? BUBBLE!
This has nothing to do with free speech or a difference of opinions. It has everything to do with MONEY or the potential loss of it. E TV is not going to risk losing sponsors. Free speech simply means you won't be arrested.
dashing... that is the point I am trying to make. They take away your free speech in order to keep "others" happy. In Phil's case, they have messed with the wrong man of God. He will not back down. Screw Duck Dynasty! At least he is keeping to his mo
As I have stated, when your persona is associated with a entity such as a TV show to such a point, they are one and the same, the comments you make are not your own, they are the character you portray. They may be the same and cannot be separated.
In the same interview, he alluded to his belief that black folks were much happier before civil rights and welfare. I'm glad to know you support that stance as well.
Georgie> to look at his statements correctly, one would actually say that he worked alone side the black people and during that time he never saw them unhappy, they smiled and sang songs. He was speaking from his experience.
thomas, you're seeing what you want to see. Actual quote: "Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”
dragonfly: I never gave a thought to what the contract might state. You're right! If the contract he signed stated there were certain things he wasn't allowed to say, then the punishment is just.
Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Yes, a contract is a binding document and even if it infringes on your constitutional rights, you are legally obligated to abide by its terms or accept the consequences. Hopefully, this issue will be resolved.
Caleb..you are 100% correct! These are healthy, happy, simple-living.(NOT simple-minded) people. They acquired wealth via honest work.They enjoy a Faith-based life & are all about FAMILY. Just too natural & tame for the public.Too bad 4 the
he became rich by his own mind. He is old so may be his tongue might be sleep. And according to me he is frank minded person. So i have no more problem about him or his speech..