I think its clear that the Liberal nuts are trying but failing where Phil Robertson is concerned.

he has every right to his opinion and faith

Massive support for him with almost 600,000 likes on the support phil facebook page that clearly shows people are not falling for the liberal bullshit.

Yes, I read a couple of articles on Yahoo, etc. if you look at the comments section, he is supported by the thousands(likes) versus a handful of negative posts. I think the guy had a right to speak his mind, and if A&E don't like it, there is probably another company that will take them.

This pretty much covers it

http://themattwalshblog.com/

Ah, now I see what this was all about.

Pity there was no quote on the original post, as I have never heard of Duck Dynasty, A&E or Phil Robertson. But I persevered! And added to my knowledge base.

Ah, now I see what this was all about.

Pity there was no quote on the original post, as I have never heard of Duck Dynasty, A&E or Phil Robertson. But I persevered! And added to my knowledge base.

Well, I had heard of Phil Robertson, homophobe and anti-Catholic.... not someone with whom I am likely to feel much sympathy!

But he's right to stand up for his beliefs, Right-wing Christianity (but the other right wing). I gather this A & E is a TV network (am I right?).... but how the ducks got into it is still beyond me. Quack! Quack! I'm always on the side of real ducks (not the puddle-duck variety).

Ah, now I see what this was all about.

Pity there was no quote on the original post, as I have never heard of Duck Dynasty, A&E or Phil Robertson. But I persevered! And added to my knowledge base.

Well, I had heard of Phil Robertson, homophobe and anti-Catholic.... not someone with whom I am likely to feel much sympathy!

But he's right to stand up for his beliefs, Right-wing Christianity (but the other right wing). I gather this A & E is a TV network (am I right?).... but how the ducks got into it is still beyond me. Quack! Quack! I'm always on the side of real ducks (not the puddle-duck variety).

Ah, now I see what this was all about.

Pity there was no quote on the original post, as I have never heard of Duck Dynasty, A&E or Phil Robertson. But I persevered! And added to my knowledge base.

Well, I had heard of Phil Robertson, homophobe and anti-Catholic.... not someone with whom I am likely to feel much sympathy!

But he's right to stand up for his beliefs, Right-wing Christianity (but the other right wing). I gather this A & E is a TV network (am I right?).... but how the ducks got into it is still beyond me. Quack! Quack! I'm always on the side of real ducks (not the puddle-duck variety).

Whilst I agree with the principle that true freedom of speech includes the right to offend people I'm somewhat baffled as to why this particular case has attracted so much attention when there are countless bigger and better examples to fret about, such as the OIC's protracted campaign to curtail freedom of speech in the west, aided and abetted by progressives.

Sorry to broaden the original thread, but here is a current example from higher education, an area particularly blighted by progressive political correctness.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25463263

Two students forced to cover T-shirts depicting Jesus and the Prophet Muhammad have won an apology.

The students were wearing the T-shirts to promote the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society at the London School of Economics (LSE) freshers' fair.

This Duck Dynasty programme is due to be shown on ITV4 in the UK next Tuesday - just before Christmas.

The trailer shows a lot of American 'woodsmen' in a bird hide, jumping up and shooting at a flock of ducks.

Sorry, folks, but that's all I know.

Freedom of speech is a difficult thing to clarify - am I free to stand up and support the right to bear arms in the UK?

Am I free to stand up and condemn the sex act in a homosexual relationship, as set out in the Old Testament?

Am I free to stand up and say that Hitler was right to invade Poland, which had been a German territory until 1918?

Am I free to stand up and say that we should bring back hanging?

Am I free to stand up and advocate the deportation of all African and Indian illegal immigrants?

Am I free to stand up and say that Cromwell was right in his treatment of the Irish?

And so many other matters that I may, or maybe do not, believe to be for the betterment of British culture and society.

Single mothers getting council accommodation?

Old age pensioners getting a free fuel allowance, getting an extra £25 every winter week when the temperature is below freezing? Old age pensioners getting free TV licences?

Youths who could be in education or appenticeships, who instead draw unemployment pay while working on a building site or pulling pints in the evenings?

Some of these things are currently allowed to be spoken about, others are verboten.

There is therefore only limited freedom of speech in the UK, as in most countries, as on most web-sites, as in most newspapers.

How can we have discussions on some of these subjects if certain arguments germane to the subject are not allowed to be broached and certain facts/statistics/discussion papers are not in the public domain?

We live in a 1984 world, but most people either do not realise this, or do not care.

His speech shouldn't be illegal.

Whether or not it impacts his employment is up to his employer.

What if he said Jews were full or murder or blacks? Would he have kept his job? Should he have?

I will add one caveat, in the vein of Andrew Sullivan's comments. The things Phil Robertson said should get you fired from most jobs. But starring on a reality show is a special kind of job, one where demonstrating that you are a good person who follows good social conventions may not be necessary.

For example, if at a Business Insider function I were to flip over a table and call one of my colleagues a "prostitution whore," I'd probably be fired. But when a Real Housewife of New Jersey does that, she's doing her job just fine. Similarly, Phil Robertson represents some very real pathologies of his culture, and his job is to provide a look into the reality of that culture to the TV viewer.

In some sense, when Robertson compares gays to terrorists, he's doing his job, too. So I'm sympathetic to the idea that A&E shouldn't suspend him for this. But if they shouldn't suspend him, it's because it's acceptable for Robertson to say unacceptable things, not because his remarks were acceptable.

http://www.businessinsider.com/phil-robertson-duck-dynasty-two-americas-2013-12

Ah, now I see what this was all about.

Pity there was no quote on the original post, as I have never heard of Duck Dynasty, A&E or Phil Robertson. But I persevered! And added to my knowledge base.

Well, I had heard of Phil Robertson, homophobe and anti-Catholic.... not someone with whom I am likely to feel much sympathy!

But he's right to stand up for his beliefs, Right-wing Christianity (but the other right wing). I gather this A & E is a TV network (am I right?).... but how the ducks got into it is still beyond me. Quack! Quack! I'm always on the side of real ducks (not the puddle-duck variety).

Are you serious?!?

Do you ACTUALLY believe Duck Man's hate speech is justified by CHRISTIANITY?

The Duck Dynasty controversy has become so ugly so fast. It's time to just call it what it is. Religious zealots like Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson are using the Bible to defame a group of people and excuse horrible actions against that group in the name of their Bible, refusing responsibility for the hate their words condone and inspire.

And much of the media seems to be going along with it because the Robertsons, a Louisiana family with a reality TV show on A&E, are home-spun country people whom everyone seems to love. I'm seeing way too much defense of this crap as free speech -- as if every corporation is forced to allow its employees to spew vile and offensive defamation against people.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/duck-dynastys-robertson-g_b_4479376.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

Merry Xmas to you too, mate.

In America, even <deleted> have a constitutional right to speak their opinions. As I understand it, he didn't do it on the job, but rather in some other interview on his own time?

If you love the right to your own free speech, then you have to let people you disagree with have their say, too. That's the whole idea.

If someone says something you totally disagree with, you can ignore them, including deciding to not watch their TV show.

But freedoms don't come free. There's always a downside so it is the lesser of two evils. I don't want to be muzzled, so I won't muzzle you.

Nobody said make it illegal. But employers have a right to fire people for many reasons and sometimes people in the entertainment industry even sign for that in their contracts. Again, get real, similar hate speech against blacks or Jews and that horrible hate monger would never work again outside the radical right wing movement. Please admit that. Because it was anti-gay he probably will work again on the same show. Now is THAT fair?

Nobody said make it illegal. But employers have a right to fire people for many reasons and sometimes people in the entertainment industry even sign for that in their contracts. Again, get real, similar hate speech against blacks or Jews and that horrible hate monger would never work again outside the radical right wing movement. Please admit that. Because it was anti-gay he probably will work again on the same show. Now is THAT fair?

I don't know. It's a tough call. Should I or an employer take action if I'm called a honkie? What if I'm called white trash?

We can keep putting the screws to different types of speech until we really don't have freedom of speech. The Bill of Rights which guarantees free speech guarantees that freedom over the government. It limits the power of the government to limit my speech.

I don't want to see that freedom slowly erode, so I'll put up with a lot.

There is nothing special about anti-gay that should place it above pro-Hitler speech or speech against women voting imho. It's stupid and ugly so let's let it go at that and focus on the real issue which is a rare and revered freedom of speech.

If we pick and choose who gets to have freedom of speech, and what he may say, then the freedom is really gone.

You didn't answer my question. Up to you. Look, dudes, I know for a FACT you couldn't keep a media job in the USA if you spouted the equivalent level of HATE SPEECH that Mr. Ducky did against gay people. So the treatment is not equal. As a gay American, I DEMAND equal treatment to other minority groups. To compare the garbage he spewed against gays to calling someone honky is laughable.

You want number ratings?

Calling a white guy HONKY is like a 1 or 2.

What Duckster did was closer to an 8 or 9.

Be serious here. Replace black or Jew with his references to gay people in this speech and tell me honestly he could keep ANY kind of non-Nazi venue media job in the USA. You're right, if you say he could, I wouldn't believe you because I KNOW it isn't true.

Let's cut to the chase here. If you assert any public figure could say a level 10 hate speech about ANY group (such as kill all the Jews, kill all the gays, etc.) and still not be legally able to be FIRED because of that in any job in the USA, now THAT would be a consistent and ethical FREE SPEECH position. But you don't think that, do you? You don't think if a black media figure spouted kill all the white people that he should not be legally able to be FIRED, do you? You see the hypocrisy in your position now? It's OK because it's about gays.

Not sure why you posted the video JT because it backs up the claim he is a true blue Christian.

His views are not Christian. Catholics used to say their religion justified killing Jews. Would that be OK to assert in today's USA and still expect to keep a non-Nazi media job? This isn't about freedom of religion it's about hate speech of a public figure.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

His views are not Christian.

No true Scotsman argument JT.

Freedom of speech mate. What should happen is he is shunned by everyone, that is not happening is it? Seems to me that many people agree with him and you can bet, of that many, most will be fellow Christians. Presumably, the recent bill passed in Uganda has nothing to do with Christianity either?

Not getting my point.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Not getting my point. Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

This is the only point I disagree with you on.

His speech shouldn't be illegal.

Whether or not it impacts his employment is up to his employer.

What if he said Jews were full or murder or blacks? Would he have kept his job? Should he have?

I will add one caveat, in the vein of Andrew Sullivan's comments. The things Phil Robertson said should get you fired from most jobs. But starring on a reality show is a special kind of job, one where demonstrating that you are a good person who follows good social conventions may not be necessary.

For example, if at a Business Insider function I were to flip over a table and call one of my colleagues a "prostitution whore," I'd probably be fired. But when a Real Housewife of New Jersey does that, she's doing her job just fine. Similarly, Phil Robertson represents some very real pathologies of his culture, and his job is to provide a look into the reality of that culture to the TV viewer.

In some sense, when Robertson compares gays to terrorists, he's doing his job, too. So I'm sympathetic to the idea that A&E shouldn't suspend him for this. But if they shouldn't suspend him, it's because it's acceptable for Robertson to say unacceptable things, not because his remarks were acceptable.

http://www.businessinsider.com/phil-robertson-duck-dynasty-two-americas-2013-12

I agree with you, in the main, but I wouldn't be using anything written by Josh Barro to reinforce my point. He's a duplicitous shit stirring blogger whose only function is to shill for that website and create inflammatory articles that drive revenue clicks.

Where do you draw the line on freedom of speech? It is easy to point the finger at specific things which you feel are objectionable.... but others would feel differently. Neither you nor I have the right to say which is acceptable.

I am a Catholic, as many of you know. I dislike seeing people abusing the Catholic church, BUT I believe they have the right to do so if they wish. Certain members of this forum have taken full advantage of that right.

I am also gay, BUT I don't think I have the right to say that there is no freedom of speech to speak against gays. People abuse gays on this forum, and the abuse is not curtailed (I was called a septic homophobe once, which amused me very much!)

I am not black, or a Jew, so I'm not personally concerned about either of these groups, BUT I believe we still have the right to abuse them if we wish.

I don't believe that we shall make any progress by repression (I freely admit that the Catholic church was pretty good at this, and I think it was quite wrong). It is a long painful progress educating people to think sensibly, but we shall never achieve it by always saying "You mustn't!"

Duck Man has every legal right to say anything he wants. There is the freedom of speech. It is near total, short of yelling fire in a crowded theater. That is NOT under challenge in America.

However, he's a horrible person. He's a hate monger. He's a bigot. He is not a real Christian, not any kind of person that represents the message of Jesus Christ who said NOTHING about gay people. You know it. I know it.

He does not have any legal right to avoid trouble with his PRIVATE employer based on his horrible hate speech. Maybe the show will go on. Maybe it won't. But his "free speech" rights remain fully intact regardless. It doesn't mean freedom from CONSEQUENCES if you reveal yourself to be a hate spewing monster like Duck Man.

Interesting to me that nobody has the cajones to disagree with me that if Duck Man had said the same LEVEL of hate speech against any other minority group he would never work again outside of the far right wing media. Again, say anything you want but you have no legal right to avoid issues with your PRIVATE EMPLOYER if you go overboard as Duck Man did.

I personally don't care if this bigot works as Duck Man in future or not. I will never watch that crap show anyway. But I do care if there is a double standard, OK to abuse gays at that level and still work in media but NOT OK to abuse other groups and still work in media. If he saves his t.v. show, I will think that is evidence of a double standard.

This forum is international, not American. My last post was meant generally, and off topic to that extent.

However, I feel that the underlying topic of free speech is so important that being off topic can be excused!

I agree with you on the whole, JT. I would certainly not consider this person a Christian, but then I'm not the one who has to decide that. Nor do I like a person who spouts homophobic drivel, but I'm not the audience he was spouting it at. You, JT, are reacting as I hope any of his audience would react, not just gays, but rational people of all sorts.

But this is the sort of thing which cannot be legislated about, and which right-thinking citizens (whoever they are!) have to deal with themselves. What is more worrying than this poor fool's maunderings is the fact that his audience lap it up.

You're inventing an issue that doesn't exist. It deflects from the actual issue of Duck Man. He has the legal right to spew hate speech; he does not have the right to avoid all FLAK from that choice. Nobody is arresting him or suggesting he should be arrested. He's on an employment suspension. That's a private matter with his employer.

You're inventing an issue that doesn't exist. It deflects from the actual issue of Duck Man. He has the legal right to spew hate speech; he does not have the right to avoid all FLAK from that choice. Nobody is arresting him or suggesting he should be arrested. He's on an employment suspension. That's a private matter with his employer.

And to me that is correct - as far as it goes.

In the UK he could be jailed for expressing his opinions publicly in the way he did. Also the network interview could be subjected to a heavy fine by the 'media watchdog'.

However, what is the next step for Robertson? Does he sue his employer for unjust suspension?

Freedom of speech is a very difficult subject. There are differing degrees, even within the <deleted> EU. (Sorry about the typo). And then we go further East to Russia. Then down to China, or across to Malaysia, where Muslim matters are unmentionable, Saudi, where everything is classified and so on.

My earlier post showed many subjects upon which I have written, mainly on other fora dealing with UK social problems. Many of my comments have been moderated, some blocked - always citing laws in the UK that curtail freedom of speech (a few times it was libel laws, which I accept, but mainly discrimination laws, which seriously curtail free speech, but which are also interpreted by moderators-with-an-agenda in order to limit discussion on some subjects, or slant the discussion in the path they want).

This, to me, is very serious. I want free speech to be free. I am prepared to be abused, I am prepared to back up my opinions, ideas, beliefs. I do not want to be silenced.

It's a story about an event in the USA so the free speech legal issues surrounding it are specific to the USA.

I would certainly not consider this person a Christian

And why would that be IB?

IMO it is a pretty safe bet that the network knew what they were getting when they hired a bunch of back wood red necks so for them to take issue with Phil expressing his opinion in a completely different forum from the on air show is at the very least an over reach on their part and begs for question who or what group is behind all the uproar. The liberal left is worse than any censor in Thailand when it comes to their sacret cows such as Obama and gays.