Posted on 12/29/2013 4:10:11 PM PST by rickmichaels
To an intelligent, open-minded person who sincerely believes in pluralism, the entire Phil Robertson, Duck Dynasty incident should have nothing at all to do with where one stands on gay issues or what one thinks of the man’s opinions, but whether we believe in freedom of speech or prefer intolerance and censorship.
Tragically, many people — especially those on the left — are increasingly of the latter variety.
And please spare me the sophomoric argument that this is a market and not a free speech issue.
There is no free market when there is a monopoly of power and influence. It’s like saying it’s a fair fight because there are only two people in the ring; that one is Mike Tyson and the other a schoolboy is suddenly irrelevant.
The reason I write about this subject now is because it is not going away.
Also, a few days after it was revealed Robertson had been suspended by A&E for expressing the views of at least 100 million Americans, comedian Bob Newhart announced he had cancelled his booked speech at the Legatus Summit in Florida next February. Legatus is an organization of Catholic businessmen and is renowned for its charitable work.
The reason was GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, the same group that had campaigned against Robertson, had applied their usual pressure and told Newhart that Legatus was somehow homophobic. It’s not, but such is the enormous influence of the gay community in Hollywood and in media that the man ran away.
As it happens, I am also speaking at the Legatus Summit; I am proud and delighted to be doing so and will not change my mind, no matter what a gang of censorship thugs and their enablers do and say.
I suppose, Mr. Newhart, that I care more about freedom, truth, courage and democracy than I do about being slandered.
I speak to Legatus chapters all over North America, and of the hundreds of members I have met, none has expressed a bigoted remark to me or said anything in any way unpleasant about gay people.
They are Christians and as such, believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman, but they are also kind and loving.
You see, the only people who seem to obsess about gay issues are gay radicals.
The other point is, as far as I know, not one speaker intended to even mention homosexuality, and I certainly had no intention of doing so. I will now, and I am sure I will not be alone.
Preposterous plotline
The very day the Robertson nonsense became public, there was an episode of Law and Order: UK on the television with the preposterous plotline of a devout Christian policeman allowing a fellow officer to die in the line of duty because the man was gay.
Lawyers and cops were angry and shocked at the fatal hatred of these awful Christians.
A far-from-unique example of anti-Christian propaganda. My response to this libel was to watch a different show.
This was almost hate speech; what the Duck Dynasty fellow said was mere difference of opinion.
Grow up you little fascists, grow up.
Freedom of speech vs. intolerance
Chivalry vs Misogyny.
The vulva vs the anus.
I’m amazed this was allowed to be published in a Canadian news publication since they have no legal first amendment equivalent north of the border.
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN CANADA.
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Fundamental Freedoms
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Free speech (of personal opinions) generally evokes the nasty and violent reply from the left when it strikes at the heart of the truth.
“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”
I guess it depends on how they’re defining the “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law” bit that gets folks in trouble, i.e., Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant and the Human Rights Tribunals.
How is this a free speech issue? If any Freepers owned a TV station would they let someone go on it and promote Jihad and Shariah?
In the days when Michael Moriarty was the prosecutor on Law and Order, I thought there were few shows or shows of that genre that were better.
Even when he left, there were good ones, but the theme began to drift...leftward...shall we say?
The last of that show and spin-offs I watched was the one when they did that ridiculous caricature of Ken Starr.
It sounds like Law and Order UK has all the quality of that Law and Order - Ken Starr episode. Why would any thinking person watch it?
“The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with.” — Gov. Bobby Jindal
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views” - William F. Buckley Jr.
Robertson did not express his points well, but if you read what he actually said as opposed to what was reported and you read the entire context, you get a very different perspective on it. If you say that his expression of traditional Christian views makes him a bigot, then you are indeed arguing that simply being a Christian makes one a bigot.
“If any Freepers owned a TV station would they let someone go on it and promote Jihad and Shariah?”
Probably not.
However, Phil Robertson didn’t express his views on A&E. Neither did express views that could be interpreted as advocating any physical harm to homosexuals or any other “sinner”, nor did he in any way promote the idea that his Christian beliefs be forced upon all nonbelievers?
Therefore, your analogy doesn’t seem to work.
You are telling me if you owned a TV station, you would never fire anyone for expressing any viewpoint you strenuously agreed with?
Sure, I might. Depends on what he said of course.
I believe A&E has the legal right to fire any employee for just cause, so whether they can do it and whether they should are two different things.
Robertson said homosexuality is a sin according to scriptures, and basically that he agreed with what he considers his God to have said about the matter.
Are you saying that an employee should be fired for quoting biblical passages and/or saying that he happens to agree with what the Bible has to say about a topic, especially if he said those things off-site, on his personal time away from the “job”?
Again, if he had advocated violence (eg advocated a Holy War or death and destruction against all nonbelievers, etc) as you mentioned in your weak analogy, then by all means as owner of the TV network, you’d want to fire any such employee forthwith so as to not be associated with him in any employee-employer relationship.
I am not saying they should have fired him at all. I am just saying it’s not a Free Speech issue. Because A&E is not the government,
“I am not saying they should have fired him at all. I am just saying it’s not a Free Speech issue. Because A&E is not the government,”
We don’t have a disagreement on that, fellow Freeper.
I’m confused as to why you say Robertson didn’t express himself well. Can you explain why you feel the anatomically correct verbiage is inappropriate?
Or was there some other aspect that you feel was worded badly?
He was plainspoken, but attacked no one, and didn’t slang his way into insult - he used anatomically correct descriptions of the actual acts. If Christians can no longer speak truth, then Christianity is truly lost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.