I love Sarah Palin, but she’s wrong this time, as are many others. There is no free speech problem here. A&E has the 1st Amendment right to broadcast what they see fit, and Phil Robertson (a good man) is free to speak as he sees fit in whatever venue will have him.
The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law,” not “A&E shall put your speech on television.” Otherwise I could claim that MY free speech rights are under attack because A&E hasn’t given me a TV show.
Also, obviously TV viewers have the right to watch or not watch A&E as they see fit.
Okay, then why are bakers forced by the courts to make wedding cakes for homosexual weddings against their will?
As Mr Spock would say, your point is illogical.
There actually is since homosexual activists and leftists are claiming Robertson engaged in hate speech, keep implying hate speech should be illegal and are defining what the Bible says about homosexuality to be hate speech.
Leftists are laying the groundwork to eliminate both free speech and criminalize the Bible.
I think Sarah Palin is making the case for opinion and free speech in the general sense, not the constitutional sense. The Left wants to destroy people for having the wrong opinion.
Wrong! Robertson’s remarks came in a magazine interview which had nothing to do with “A&E”. Covered “free speech”.
You need to read up on the First Amendment and all its correlary court decisions.
You DO know that A&E would not have fired this good man were it not for the pressure of the creepy GLAAD bigots? They are cowards who have disgraced themselves by not standing up to the powerful forces of hate and tyranny. No one here is talking about the *right* of the network to drop the show.
Luckily, this obsequeous decision may become a godsend for Glenn Beck’s network, and the Robertson family. Bob
You are correct that there’s no 1st Amendment problem, because that deals with the federal government’s relationship to its citizenry.
However, it is most definitely a “free speech” issue, as the left is always trying to muzzle ideological opponents. Unless there’s push back, they’ll succeed.
Although you are catching a lot of flak, you are technically correct. It isn’t a 1’st amendment issue, for the reasons you stated. Private companies can and do fire people routinely for doing or saying things that are deemed “innapropriate” to their company image, whatever that criteria might be, and the specific language is ubiquitous in show biz contract fine print.
A&E knows who and what the Robertson family is, what they believe and stand for and they put them on the network precisely because of this. Now, 4 years into it, they now decide to censor and punish him? I think the 5th season is already in the can so how are they going to edit him out?
A&E has one good show on, “Longmire”. I hope this show doesn’t take a hit because of this. On the other hand, the Robertson’s ought to refuse to do a 6th season.
Your argument is being espoused my most. However, the contradiction is no “public” “non religious” entity would be allowed to fire an individual for expressing pro homosexual activities. At least not without a court fight, which they would be sure to lose. So yes, this is a very much a free speech issue.
Yep. But you see, that will get buried under the weight of “THE HOMOS” and reason will cease to matter.
Let me guess...you're a member of the Pepsi generation. I figured out that around the late 80s the effect of new math and indoctrination that began in the schools in the 60s started to come to fruition. Now the crooks that would make Al Capone blush and run-of-the-mill commies are in charge of this country because critical thinking is mostly non-existant in younger Americans (30's and below) these days.
Phil’s comments weren’t said on A&E.
You are correct, in my opinion.
Another point is that this is A&E. I mean it’s like throwing red dripping meat into a crocodile pit and being scandalized that the crocs start eating. I bet this duck dude isn’t shocked, he had to know who he was dealing with for years.
Freegards
She didn't say the 1st Amendment was endangered, she said free speech was endangered, and she's right.
We, and she, are smart enough to know that the 1st Amendment applies to congress.