@engineer,
Quote:How about this story? An employee of a Dominics store that is being closed is suspended one day before he is scheduled to be laid off (risking his severance pay) because of a humorous (to me but maybe not to his employer) video criticizing them. Evil corporation silencing free speech? Does it make a difference that the complaint is not about "Christian Morals"? Does it make a difference that the speech is not coming from a multimillionaire reality TV star?
Your link to the story doesn't work, engineer.
In general, I don't think this is a free speech issue, which pertains to actions on the part of the government.
In terms of daily life, including employment, speech can, and does have, consequences that can lead to getting fired. Private employers can fire someone for speech they find unacceptable. It really doesn't matter whether it's speech about "Christian Morals" or an employee saying to his boss, "Go f--k yourself," if the employer finds the speech unacceptable, or detrimental to the business, they can fire someone. TV networks fire people all the time, for speech that affects the image of the network in ways the corporation finds undesirable.
Plenty of things found in the Bible are now considered offensive, so simply because the speech may have Biblical references, does not protect it from consequences in terms of employment. The Bible has often served as a source for considerable bigotry, discrimination, hatred, and violence directed at one group or another. So, the fact that Robertson's offensive remarks may be rooted in his religious beliefs doesn't make them any more acceptable or less offensive to some people hearing them. The employer can't insist that Robertson change his religious beliefs, or stop practicing his religion, but he can fire him if he doesn't like what he's hearing, or if the speech is contrary to the values and standards of the corporation the employee represents.
It was right-wing politicians and faith-based groups that turned this into a religious issue--it's not a religious issue. And Phil Robertson himself did not protest his suspension on religious grounds, he really didn't protest the suspension at all, nor did his sons--they only said they couldn't imagine doing Duck Dynasty without him, which was vague and ambiguous.
All of the noise about this entire episode was made by outside parties trying to influence a private corporations' business decisions. On one side were various activist groups expressing outrage about the offensive nature of the remarks, and on the other side were the right-wing politicos and faith-based groups expressing outrage, for what they saw, as the "liberal media" taking action against a Christian for expressing his beliefs. What the latter group failed to appreciate was that the "beliefs", or opinions, in this case were about a variety of social and cultural issues, and they ran contrary to the values and opinions the network espoused and tried to promote.
Why on earth should an employer be forced to retain someone, who represents their brand, and who goes around saying things they feel damage their brand or their business interests? That's really what this was about. This situation is much closer to the situation that the Food Network faced with Paula Dean than it is to anything connected with religion. That's why A & E's initial move was to try to placate the offended groups, with whom they apparently agreed, by suspending Robertson. The suspension itself was really a sham, since Duck Dynasty was on hiatus, but it bought A & E, and the Robertsons, time to work on damage control and to figure out how to move forward and salvage a popular reality show that both those parties wanted to hold onto and see remain viable.
It's pretty clear that A & E never wanted to dump Phil Robertson, and the Robertson clan was not going to up the ante and turn against A & E, because of the suspension, because they wanted to hang onto this show too. Unlike the Paula Dean situation, Duck Dynasty was much more financially important to A & E than her show was to Food Network. So their move was to try to appease the offended activist groups, clearly separate themselves from Robertson's opinions, and talk with all of those parties to work out a game plan so they, and the Robertsons, could hang onto this show.
I suspect they all wanted more time to work this out, but the flack, and online petitions, and animosity toward the network, that was being fueled by groups like Faith Driven Consumers, was mushrooming out of control and threatening to cause even more damage, so A & E hastily announced their final decision--Phil was staying, and the network would air public service announcements promoting tolerance and acceptance. An imperfect solution, but a solution aimed at stopping any more adverse consequences to the network.
A & E clearly came down on the side of the offended activist groups, where they had been all along, and likely ignored the essentially spurious issues the right wing groups were clamoring about--their final statement didn't even throw them a bone, and Faith Driven Consumers immediately complained they were left out of the talks A & E had with other groups.
This whole incident generated far much attention than it warranted. Had it not touched on hot-button social issues, like homosexual equality, same-sex marriage, vestiges of racism and racial animosity, etc.--none of which actually reflect the programming content of Duck Dynasty--and, had it not been a relatively slow news cycle--it would not have generated the media buzz it got. Even if it's watched by 14 million people, which is fantastic for a cable reality show, most people don't watch Duck Dynasty, they had no idea who the hell this man is, and they probably don't care what he thinks about
anything.
Apart from generating tons of publicity for Duck Dynasty, most of the discussion has focused, not on that show, but the other issues this episode brought to the surface--and they are contentious social issues that divide the country. Just as the killing of Trayvon Martin sparked discussions about racism, racial profiling, gun control, self defense laws, also controversial issues, Robertson's remarks, and A & E's reaction, set off a firestorm of debate about freedom of speech and religion, the rights of employers, the actions of advocacy groups on all sides of the spectrum, same-sex marriage, racial attitudes, bigotry, social change, and the need for tolerance in an extremely diverse society. All of that discussion and debate is healthy.
Robertson didn't actually create the social issues controversy, he just exposed it, and, in the larger scheme of things, he's a relatively insignificant figure, as is George Zimmerman, and their personal fates, whether determined by a jury or an employer, are not going to significantly affect any lives other than their own.
One problem I see with the discussions that have swirled around both of them, including at A2K, is that the supporters of both Robertson and Zimmerman tend to force the dialogue into a "for or against" extreme dichotomy, totally ignoring the range of legitimate opinion that falls in the middle of what their supporters think these people represent.
That sort of rigidity limits and shuts down discussion, the underlying issues are complex, and many people hold conflicting or complex opinions, even within themselves, or would simply rather see a discussion that's more objective and nuanced, without being forced to take any side. At A2K, it seems to me, that's become less and less possible. People divide into opposing camps, or are pushed into them, and stay there, causing most threads to become repetitious, and not particularly interesting, very fast. That's been true in this thread too.
There is no clear right or wrong with most of these social/political issues, and debates about any of them can't be won in threads like this, and the goal shouldn't be on winning, or trying to slap down opposing views, it really should be on listening to what the other side is saying, and on trying to understand why they are saying it, the basis for their thinking, rather than on trying to advocate for only one side. Just as rigid "for or against" thinking has led to gridlock in Congress, it leads to gridlock in numerous A2K threads as well. The ability to seek compromise, and to find some middle ground, is essential in trying to resolve differences when there are diverse points of view. The problems arise when no one is interested in resolving differences and it's all about "winning".
As far as the topic of this thread is concerned, A & E opted to compromise, so evidently did Phil Robertson, and his clan, because they went along with A & E. all along. The compromise they agreed to is obviously not going to fully please all the outside groups who were on differing sides, because A & E's main concern revolved around financial issues, and the Robertsons seemingly shared the same concern. Principle did not trump money in importance--not for A & E, and not for the duck clan--money clearly won in this skirmish. But I think A & E's attempt to resolve this with compromise is far better than the usual abrupt firings we've seen other networks engage in. They've set an example other networks might continue emulating.
