Freedom of Religious Opinion? Not If You're Phil Robertson

[Wildman]

7 pages of disagreement and if it goes another 7, there will still be a deadlock, libernuts have their opinion and conservative base have theirs.

i tend to believe A&E fucked up, i do NOT believe there will be a huge settlement, just a parting of ways, there are other networks chomping at the bit to sign them as soon as A&E releases D.D. from their contract, i also don't believe D.D. will agree to any "waiting period" before signing with another network..., like FOX !

 

[TemplarKormac]

Here's an example of a morals clause from an entertainer contract:

"If at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program."

Therefore, yes they can do what you keep insisting they can't do.

Read up.

Keep your pants on - the morals clause in performer contracts - Lexology

Here's the one fact you missed. This is a reality show, whereby the performers aren't performing via a script. They are going about their daily lives while being filmed by a TV network, hence "reality show." Therefore, they are not performers per the terms of that excerpt. That doesn't make them "artists" by any stretch of the term.

Perhaps you should "read up" carbine.

First of all, your claims have been comprehensive, and not limited to reality show performers,

even if that was relevant, which it isn't.

I've produced credible evidence that actors can in fact be required to accept a very far reaching morals clause as a condition of their employment.

It's up to you now to prove with credible evidence that the performers on a so-called reality tv show are for whatever reasons exempt from such a possible requirement.

I made it clear to another poster here. Unless A&E was controlling Robertson when he made those comments, then they would have complete standing to terminate him. Even so they still apparently have that right even though he was nowhere near their studios or working on their time when he made such comments.

Doesn't that sound strange that an employer can control their employees wherever they are?

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's called regulating speech, dimwit.

Get a freaking clue, wench.

Here's an example of a morals clause from an entertainer contract:

"If at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program."

Therefore, yes they can do what you keep insisting they can't do.

Read up.

Keep your pants on - the morals clause in performer contracts - Lexology

Here's the one fact you missed. This is a reality show, whereby the performers aren't performing via a script. They are going about their daily lives while being filmed by a TV network, hence "reality show." Therefore, they are not performers per the terms of that excerpt. That doesn't make them "artists" by any stretch of the term.

Perhaps you should "read up" carbine.

If you're correct, then this could not have happened:

Jon Gosselin Violates Morals Clause, Moves On with Reality Show

Jon Gosselin Violates Morals Clause, Moves On with Reality Show

So, since it has to be one or the other, which is it?

1. This never happened to Jon Gosselin, or,

2. You were wrong.

 

[Luissa]

Thanks for proving my point. You are now defending them, even after they played a role in getting him terminated. Yes they have a right to protest, but Robertson has a right to free speech.

He was suspended not terminated.

And no one infringed on his first amendment rights. A&E has every right to suspend him, which still has nothing to do with first amendment rights.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Look up the words "indefinite hiatus" in a dictionary and get back to me.

Look up what the first amendment protects you from and get back to me.


Here is a piece from NPR that might help you get a clue.

"As he tells NPR's Ari Shapiro, "Freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment — but only where the government is concerned.

"What most Americans generally don't know is that the Constitution doesn't apply to private corporations at all."

In terms of monitoring its employees, the list of things a corporation can't do is a short one — it's basically confined to eavesdropping on a personal oral conversation, Maltby said. "Anything else is open season."

And outside the workplace, personal blogs or social media pages on services like Twitter or Facebook offer no refuge.

Asked if workers can be fired for things they write on those sites, Maltby said, "Absolutely. Happens every day."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123024596

And I think you should look up indefinite. Give you clue. Unclear, undefined, unsettled.. Termination would mean it was settled.
Plus the family is in talks with A&E, I am guessing they will both agree for money reasons he will take a suspension, apologize and be back next season.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TemplarKormac]

Here's an example of a morals clause from an entertainer contract:

"If at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program."

Therefore, yes they can do what you keep insisting they can't do.

Read up.

Keep your pants on - the morals clause in performer contracts - Lexology

Here's the one fact you missed. This is a reality show, whereby the performers aren't performing via a script. They are going about their daily lives while being filmed by a TV network, hence "reality show." Therefore, they are not performers per the terms of that excerpt. That doesn't make them "artists" by any stretch of the term.

Perhaps you should "read up" carbine.

If you're correct, then this could not have happened:

Jon Gosselin Violates Morals Clause, Moves On with Reality Show

Jon Gosselin Violates Morals Clause, Moves On with Reality Show

So, since it has to be one or the other, which is it?

1. This never happened to Jon Gosselin, or,

2. You were wrong.

So presenting me with a red herring makes you correct all of a sudden? What hasn't been proven is whether Robertson had a morals clause in his contract. So, 1) There's a morals clause in his contract, or 2) You are speculating.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"Consistent" and "honest" are relative terms with you in particular.

How so in your opinion?

You first said he shouldn't have been suspended, but then went on to say that GLAAD had every right to protest and play a role in his suspension. You act as if you can have it both ways, not to mention you're advocating a militant gay rights group putting a man and his show out of business for stating his religious views. You are being consistently dishonest if anything. Actually, as far as constitutional rights are concerned, this isn't constitutional, it's tolerance based. However, labor law does generally forbid an employer from regulating speech of their employees unless they are in direct control of the employee at the time they made the comments.

Homosexuals speak of tolerating other peoples beliefs, but when it comes down to it, they don't. Instead they seek to snuff out any speech or opposition to their lifestyles and demand tolerance like spoiled children on a sugar rush.

There is nothing contradictory about that statement.

I don't agree with the Westboro Baptist Church either, but I acknowledge their right to say what they say.

 

[Luissa]

Here's the one fact you missed. This is a reality show, whereby the performers aren't performing via a script. They are going about their daily lives while being filmed by a TV network, hence "reality show." Therefore, they are not performers per the terms of that excerpt. That doesn't make them "artists" by any stretch of the term.



Perhaps you should "read up" carbine.

First of all, your claims have been comprehensive, and not limited to reality show performers,



even if that was relevant, which it isn't.



I've produced credible evidence that actors can in fact be required to accept a very far reaching morals clause as a condition of their employment.



It's up to you now to prove with credible evidence that the performers on a so-called reality tv show are for whatever reasons exempt from such a possible requirement.

I made it clear to another poster here. Unless A&E was controlling Robertson when he made those comments, then they would have complete standing to terminate him. Even so they still apparently have that right even though he was nowhere near their studios or working on their time when he made such comments.



Doesn't that sound strange that an employer can control their employees wherever they are?

No, it sounds pretty normal. Only a moron wouldn't realize that.
They aren't controlling you, you can do whatever you like, they just have the right to fire you for it.

You realize people are fired every day for what they post on social media?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That's called regulating speech, dimwit.

Get a freaking clue, wench.

Here's an example of a morals clause from an entertainer contract:

"If at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program."

Therefore, yes they can do what you keep insisting they can't do.

Read up.

Keep your pants on - the morals clause in performer contracts - Lexology

Here's the one fact you missed. This is a reality show, whereby the performers aren't performing via a script. They are going about their daily lives while being filmed by a TV network, hence "reality show." Therefore, they are not performers per the terms of that excerpt. That doesn't make them "artists" by any stretch of the term.

Perhaps you should "read up" carbine.

1. Duck Dynasty is most certainly "scripted". If you watch the credits, you'll see "writers". A "reality show" isn't "reality".

2. He is a "performer" because he is paid by A&E to "perform".

There is no legal distinction that separates "reality show" performers from any other "performers", other than labor agreements. (Reality show performers are usually not SAG members, and the writers aren't WGA members.)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As far as I know, Luissa, when can they regulate his speech when he isn't on the show? Hmm?

They can't regulate his speech, but they can suspend him for what he says.
I have the freedom to call my boss <insert any derogatory term> without facing legal back lash. But my boss has every right to fire me.
I have the right to say rude comments about the elderly, but my boss has the right to fire me for how that might make my employer look.
When I was hired I had to sign a piece of paper saying I would not talk badly or misrepresent my corporation on social media.

The problem is, you don't get what Freedom of Speech protects you from and what rights a employer has.
Or the fact A&E most likely figured out their legal rights before acting. They pay lawyers lots of money to protect themselves.

Get a freakin clue, moron.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's called regulating speech, dimwit.

Get a freaking clue, wench.

Incorrect.

Only government can attempt to regulate speech, and only government can be restricted when its attempt to regulate speech violates First Amendment jurisprudence.

Private entities can’t regulate speech, and to take adverse action against an employee for inappropriate speech is not a ‘violation’ of free expression.

Luissa is correct and you’re wrong again – as usual.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Here's the one fact you missed. This is a reality show, whereby the performers aren't performing via a script. They are going about their daily lives while being filmed by a TV network, hence "reality show." Therefore, they are not performers per the terms of that excerpt. That doesn't make them "artists" by any stretch of the term.

Perhaps you should "read up" carbine.

If you're correct, then this could not have happened:

Jon Gosselin Violates Morals Clause, Moves On with Reality Show

Jon Gosselin Violates Morals Clause, Moves On with Reality Show

So, since it has to be one or the other, which is it?

1. This never happened to Jon Gosselin, or,

2. You were wrong.

So presenting me with a red herring makes you correct all of a sudden? What hasn't been proven is whether Robertson had a morals clause in his contract. So, 1) There's a morals clause in his contract, or 2) You are speculating.

It's industry standard procedure that he would have a "morals clause" in his contract. There's no reason to think he doesn't.

 

[Luissa]

Here's the one fact you missed. This is a reality show, whereby the performers aren't performing via a script. They are going about their daily lives while being filmed by a TV network, hence "reality show." Therefore, they are not performers per the terms of that excerpt. That doesn't make them "artists" by any stretch of the term.

Perhaps you should "read up" carbine.

If you're correct, then this could not have happened:

Jon Gosselin Violates Morals Clause, Moves On with Reality Show

Jon Gosselin Violates Morals Clause, Moves On with Reality Show

So, since it has to be one or the other, which is it?

1. This never happened to Jon Gosselin, or,

2. You were wrong.

So presenting me with a red herring makes you correct all of a sudden? What hasn't been proven is whether Robertson had a morals clause in his contract. So, 1) There's a morals clause in his contract, or 2) You are speculating.

Do you think a large corporation wouldn't protect themselves ?
Or publicly suspend someone without one?
Good thing the lawyers at A&E are smarter than you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[asterism]

Freedom of Religious Opinion? Not If You're Phil Robertson

Not for any of us in an employee setting.

Uh.... Hey, STUPID!!!

He wasn't in an 'employee setting'

I suspect that actually, he was. I haven't seen a lot of media contracts but all of those I've seen that were for personal services rendered in support of a brand (TV show, recording contract, product spokesperson) set some very clear rules about any and all contact with any media.

It would be wrongful termination if he was being suspended for attending (and even speaking) at Church. But this was a media appearance about the TV show.

A&E can do what they wish in this case. Even if it is a stupid decision, it's legal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's the one fact you missed. This is a reality show, whereby the performers aren't performing via a script. They are going about their daily lives while being filmed by a TV network, hence "reality show." Therefore, they are not performers per the terms of that excerpt. That doesn't make them "artists" by any stretch of the term.

Perhaps you should "read up" carbine.

If you're correct, then this could not have happened:

Jon Gosselin Violates Morals Clause, Moves On with Reality Show

Jon Gosselin Violates Morals Clause, Moves On with Reality Show

So, since it has to be one or the other, which is it?

1. This never happened to Jon Gosselin, or,

You were wrong.

So presenting me with a red herring makes you correct all of a sudden? What hasn't been proven is whether Robertson had a morals clause in his contract. So, 1) There's a morals clause in his contract, or 2) You are speculating.

So now you're denying that you said that reality show participants cannot be subjected to morals clauses because of the nature of reality shows?

Specifically, are you denying that you said this?

"This is a reality show, whereby the performers aren't performing via a script. They are going about their daily lives while being filmed by a TV network, hence "reality show." Therefore, they are not performers per the terms of that excerpt. That doesn't make them "artists" by any stretch of the term."

So once again, if Jon Gosselin was in a reality show, and had a morals clause in his contract,

how can that have occurred if you are correct in saying that it's impossible for that to occur?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I guess I must have missed the thread about how Charlie Sheen was discriminated against for using his freedom of speech when he was fired from 2 and a Half Men.

 

[Gracie]

Teachers get fired for posting scuzzy pics on their websites even though they are not in school. Female cops get fired if racy pics are posted on websites they submitted. Once you sign a contract to represent someone, and it is worded right, yes, you belong to that person and what you can and cannot do. HOWEVER, he was asked about his beliefs. Did his contract state he could not discuss his spiritual beliefs? If so, he was foolish to sign it. If not, A&E is in big doo doo. Regardless, he has a right to his opinion when it comes to his beliefs.

Another question to ask is...what exactly did he say in that interview...and WHO EDITED IT? I mean, really? People edit all the time to get more UMPH for the interviewers readers. Page hits. You know the drill.

I believe Phil over what any media outlet says. But that's me.

 

[Gracie]

I guess I must have missed the thread about how Charlie Sheen was discriminated against for using his freedom of speech when he was fired from 2 and a Half Men.

And look what happened to that show. Right smack dab in the mud pit, lol.

Reap what ya sow. They sowed. Charlie wound up laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here's the one fact you missed. This is a reality show, whereby the performers aren't performing via a script. They are going about their daily lives while being filmed by a TV network, hence "reality show." Therefore, they are not performers per the terms of that excerpt. That doesn't make them "artists" by any stretch of the term.

Perhaps you should "read up" carbine.

First of all, your claims have been comprehensive, and not limited to reality show performers,

even if that was relevant, which it isn't.

I've produced credible evidence that actors can in fact be required to accept a very far reaching morals clause as a condition of their employment.

It's up to you now to prove with credible evidence that the performers on a so-called reality tv show are for whatever reasons exempt from such a possible requirement.

I made it clear to another poster here. Unless A&E was controlling Robertson when he made those comments, then they would have complete standing to terminate him. Even so they still apparently have that right even though he was nowhere near their studios or working on their time when he made such comments.

Doesn't that sound strange that an employer can control their employees wherever they are?

Again, the venue in which the comments are made is irrelevant.

If the network perceives the comments as a threat to its interests, it can seek to terminate the relationship.

And the cast member may explore legal action if he believes the network in violation of a contract.

But as already correct noted, the network had already determined the legal aspects before taking action.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Phil Robertson had a right to say what he said.
A&E as a private company had a right to suspend Robertson.
There are consequences for that suspension which will be losing the show completely.

The Robertsons aren't going to be hurt. The network will be hurt. That is their decision. It is a business decision.

I think in the end that's how it will end up. A&E is taking the hit. Scroll through their lineup tonight, it's all Duck Dynasty.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

7 pages of disagreement and if it goes another 7, there will still be a deadlock, libernuts have their opinion and conservative base have theirs.

i tend to believe A&E fucked up, i do NOT believe there will be a huge settlement, just a parting of ways, there are other networks chomping at the bit to sign them as soon as A&E releases D.D. from their contract, i also don't believe D.D. will agree to any "waiting period" before signing with another network..., like FOX !

Actually not.

Conservatives holding the errant position that the network’s action somehow ‘violates’ free speech are factually wrong.

 

[Plasmaball]

Yeah! I am not the one who needs to get a clue.

You do realize you look very stupid right now, right?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Um, not really. In fact you were the one who stumbled into this thread yammering about African Americans and Civil Rights, on your iPhone no less.

Still haven't looked up all of his comments in GQ I see.
As for my iPhone. I have left that sig line up because it seems to bug you right wingers so much.


Bill Maher's show was canceled due to his comments, Alec Baldwin was just canceled for gay slurs, Paula Deen was fired for her comments, Olberman was let go due to his comments, Bashir quit after being suspended, Tiger Woods lost sponsors over his affairs that had nothing to do with Golf, Brett Favre lost sponsors due to his affairs. Do you see a pattern?
A corporation has the right to suspend or fire you if your actions reflect poorly on them. The government doesn't have the right to bring legal action upon you for your speech or actions if not illegal. Learn what the First Amendment protects your from and get back to me.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where is templars thread about bashir? Where is his outrage?

O

That wont be coming.