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

[koshergrl]

I just feel like if A&E deems Phil's comments a threat to the public image of the company, they have a right to fire him. They own the show and can do whatever the fuck they want with it.

A&E does not own the show. At best, they own the name "Duck Dynasty". A&E does not own the sets, the cars, the buildings or the land the show is filmed on. In the normal course of entertainment law, the producer and director can ban a suspended star or employee from the set. In this case, the set is Phil's house and he owns all the land the show is filmed on. He can ban A&E from his property. They can't ban him.

If he doesn't do the show he's in deep doo doo with other parts of the same contract that commits him to do it as they need, so that's wrong too.

You're wrong. WAY wrong.

"
Yesterday Entertainment Weekly claimed that despite his suspension, Robertson will be back on the hugely popular show – which regularly pulls in 12 million viewers – when filming recommences in January.

They quoted a source saying: ‘The network also hopes the media and fan furor will cool down over the holidays and that tensions over shooting future episodes can then be resolved. There’s no negotiation to have; we’re doing the show.’



Read more: Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson says he is a lover not a hater | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[KevinWestern]

It has no effect on Phil Robertson who doesn't need the money or the show. Also, if you read the clause carefully it references loses the respect of the public. What of someone who GAINS the respect of the public like Phil Robertson has done.

This particular morality clause does not exactly support your point.

Katz- I'm not saying the firing will or will not have an effect on Phil. The guy has a successful show and if you ask me he should simply leave the network and start his own deal.

I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST PHIL, lol.

My point is the guy ran his mouth in an interview in a way that stirred up unpredictable and unwanted controversy and now A&E has a right to fire him if they wish. Most companies don't like controversy and do all they can to protect themselves from it. I guarantee you he signed something that said "if I stir up negative press, etc, the producers have a right to terminate me".

GQ should not have asked him the question what he viewed as sinful, if some people did not like the answer.

GQ has absolutely nothing to do with the agreements between A&E and their TV personalities. They hold no responsibility in this matter.

 

[Edgetho]

A&E does not own the show. At best, they own the name "Duck Dynasty". A&E does not own the sets, the cars, the buildings or the land the show is filmed on. In the normal course of entertainment law, the producer and director can ban a suspended star or employee from the set. In this case, the set is Phil's house and he owns all the land the show is filmed on. He can ban A&E from his property. They can't ban him.

If he doesn't do the show he's in deep doo doo with other parts of the same contract that commits him to do it as they need, so that's wrong too.

You're wrong. WAY wrong.

"
Yesterday Entertainment Weekly claimed that despite his suspension, Robertson will be back on the hugely popular show – which regularly pulls in 12 million viewers – when filming recommences in January.

They quoted a source saying: ‘The network also hopes the media and fan furor will cool down over the holidays and that tensions over shooting future episodes can then be resolved. There’s no negotiation to have; we’re doing the show.’



Read more: Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson says he is a lover not a hater | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

A&E folded like a cheap suit.

 

[Pogo]

[MENTION=36318]Edgetho[/MENTION] - are you aware of something called the "Morality Clause"? Goes like this...

MORALITY CLAUSE FOR FILMS - Universal Will Cancel Engagements of Actors Who Forfeit Respect. - Article - NYTimes.com

From the scanned article:
>> Actors and actresses employed by the Universal Film Company hereafter will be bound by a "morality clause" in thier contracts, permitting the company to discontinue their salaries if they forfeit the respect of the public...

... As contracts are drawn today, a company seems to be liable not only to continue to pay the salary of an actor or actress who forfeits the respect of the public, but has to bear the obloquy of still having them in its employ.

... it will protect the company in an investment, often of hundreds of thousands of dollars. <<
-- September 22, 1921 -- it's been around over 90 years.

You just don't get the word obloquy in print any more.

 

[Pogo]

A&E does not own the show. At best, they own the name "Duck Dynasty". A&E does not own the sets, the cars, the buildings or the land the show is filmed on. In the normal course of entertainment law, the producer and director can ban a suspended star or employee from the set. In this case, the set is Phil's house and he owns all the land the show is filmed on. He can ban A&E from his property. They can't ban him.

Duck Dynasty IS THE SHOW and A & E owns it.
Was a contract signed for the 2014 season?
But you are right, NO ONE has banned Robertson from anything to do with his religious opinions.

Duck Dynasty is the name of the show and all A&E can possibly own. They can't own the people. They don't own the set. They don't own anything used on the set. The contract was signed in 2010 and runs for five years. It is up for renewal in 2015. It has a year to go. A contract dispute would cover only the remaining year. The episodes for 2014 have already been filmed and Phil is in all of them but the last one. That leaves a single 2014 episode and all of 2015.

Say the entire family says they will not sign another five year contract. They don't have to. That's the end of the show. If they refuse to complete the final year of the contract they are in breach. Any number of things can happen. Phil could say "I've been suspended, now you don't have the right to film on my land or in my house anymore". There's really nothing A&E can do about that. They did suspend him. A&E could let everyone out of their contracts and hire actors to complete the remaining year, then A&E has to supply the set. Unlike most television shows, DD has no guest stars. Did you notice? There are no visitors.

This would not be an easy contract dispute to resolve because A&E really did set up the situation that they used to suspend Phil. This is dealing in bad faith and cause their entire claim of breach to fail. The Robertsons are not without defenses. A&E has a history of trying to change the portrayal of the family and misrepresent themselves. They wanted discussions of God and the exhibition of guns eliminated. The network introduced bleeps to make it appear that profanity was being used. It is alleged that the interview with GQ was a set up to give the network an excuse to punish Robertson. In that case, the suspension itself is illegal!

This could turn into an absolute legal nest of snakes.

"It is alleged" by who?

You do know the comments in question were reportedly produced on an ATV ride with the reporter when the A&E rep was not present, right? Or do you not know that?

 

[KevinWestern]

This is a wonderful opportunity to illustrate the difference between a Patriotic American and a dimocrap scumbag......

A Patriot will say, "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

A dimocrap scumbag will say, "I disagree with what you say because you are bigot, a homophobe and a redneck. You should lose your job, be subject to public ridicule and held up for scorn. Fuck you, I hate you and I want you to die."

Edge are you really this dumb?

Is Phil going to jail? Are people calling to execute him or deport him? Is the government censoring the GQ interview? Is A&E saying that Phil's comments were illegal and that he should be arrested? No. He has the freedom to say whatever the heck he wants and I will defend that right until the end.

I have nothing against Phil.

What I am in opposition to is individuals like you who feel that a company/brand like A&E has absolutely NO RIGHTS when it comes to protecting their investments. You're basically telling A&E and all of its stakeholders to "go fuck yourself" and that they're not allowed to run their own company. That's shameful, man.



.

 

[peach174]

Katz- I'm not saying the firing will or will not have an effect on Phil. The guy has a successful show and if you ask me he should simply leave the network and start his own deal.

I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST PHIL, lol.

My point is the guy ran his mouth in an interview in a way that stirred up unpredictable and unwanted controversy and now A&E has a right to fire him if they wish. Most companies don't like controversy and do all they can to protect themselves from it. I guarantee you he signed something that said "if I stir up negative press, etc, the producers have a right to terminate me".

GQ should not have asked him the question what he viewed as sinful, if some people did not like the answer.

A&E should have exercised more restraint in who Phil should be allowed to hold interviews with. One would have thought they'd do anything to protect their star. But alas not.

GLAAD should have had more tolerance to someones religious opinion, which is our Constitutional right.
They accused him of equating homosexuality with bestiality and he did no such thing.
Then they threatened A &E.
The Fans of the show had the right to protest back.

 

[KevinWestern]

GQ should not have asked him the question what he viewed as sinful, if some people did not like the answer.

A&E should have exercised more restraint in who Phil should be allowed to hold interviews with. One would have thought they'd do anything to protect their star. But alas not.

GLAAD should have had more tolerance to someones religious opinion, which is our Constitutional right.
They accused him of equating homosexuality with bestiality and he did no such thing.
Then they threatened A &E.
The Fans of the show had the right to protest back.

People are guaranteed a right to free speech, but are not always guaranteed a right to employment as a result of that free speech.

It's not illegal for a Chicago Bears spokesmen to come out and say that "the Packers are the best team of all time and will always dominate the Bears", however the Chicago Bears have a right to fire him for those statements.

 

[Pogo]

Duck Dynasty IS THE SHOW and A & E owns it.
Was a contract signed for the 2014 season?
But you are right, NO ONE has banned Robertson from anything to do with his religious opinions.

Duck Dynasty is the name of the show and all A&E can possibly own. They can't own the people.

They don't literally own people but with a standard morality clause they might as well; the Producer owns the illusion it's selling on TV, and that standard morality clause protects that illusion. If one of their actors puts the illusion in jeopardy, then they retain the right to jettison that actor or whatever action they may wish to take.

A morality clause basically sells your soul if you want to be a bad boy, and what violates it is solely at the discretion of the Producer. Welcome to TV land. If you don't like it, then don't play in it.

 

[Edgetho]

This is a wonderful opportunity to illustrate the difference between a Patriotic American and a dimocrap scumbag......

A Patriot will say, "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

A dimocrap scumbag will say, "I disagree with what you say because you are bigot, a homophobe and a redneck. You should lose your job, be subject to public ridicule and held up for scorn. Fuck you, I hate you and I want you to die."

Edge are you really this dumb?

Is Phil going to jail? Are people calling to execute him or deport him? No. He has the freedom to say whatever the heck he wants and I will defend that right until the end.

I have nothing against Phil.

What I am in opposition to is individuals like you who feel that a company/brand like A&E has absolutely NO RIGHTS when it comes to protecting their investments. You're basically telling A&E and all of its stakeholders to "go fuck yourself" and that they're not allowed to run their own company.



.

I could see it if Phil R went out and started screaming about how he hated fags and thought they were all scumbags etc, etc.

But what he did was talk about SIN and SINNERS. There was no hate in his heart or in his words.

The problem with you people is that any speech that doesn't fall within the narrow guidelines you demand OF OTHERS is righteously condemned and the people who spoke it along with it.

But let a group with the right 'status' make fun of gays, and..Hey! It's all just in fun, right?

Saturday Night Live
Christmas Past
Watch Saturday Night Live: Christmas Past online | Free | Hulu

You might think of yourself as a good individual, but you're being controlled by some seriously evil people.

Of course, if you admit it, then you have to admit that you've been wrong your entire life.

Not an easy thing to do. Takes a lot of guts and that's one major reason that people don't change.

 

[Pogo]

What do you mean 'wrong'? You just affirmed what I said.

You stated SAG would only pertain to full time people.
And that is false.

And you are right. That is completely false. Absolutely and irrevocably false.

I said that Robertson is probably not a SAG member, or a fulltime employee of A&E. He's likely an independent contractor hired for the specific term of the specific show. They're not going to ask him to run camera on "Hoarders".

 

[Pogo]

[MENTION=36318]Edgetho[/MENTION] - are you aware of something called the "Morality Clause"? Goes like this...

MORALITY CLAUSE FOR FILMS - Universal Will Cancel Engagements of Actors Who Forfeit Respect. - Article - NYTimes.com

It has no effect on Phil Robertson who doesn't need the money or the show. Also, if you read the clause carefully it references loses the respect of the public. What of someone who GAINS the respect of the public like Phil Robertson has done.

This particular morality clause does not exactly support your point.

If A&E has a right to fire him for unwanted publicity, and they do. Does the family not also have a right to quit if the network is getting them unwanted publicity or portraying them in an unfavorable light?

Of course they do.

Nope. The rights are all on the side of the Producer, who after all owns the show and the network that puts it out. We did this.

 

[Pogo]

Damnit, Templar I thought you were better than this.

Would you protest Hobby Lobby firing a Public Relations executive after he/she came out as a Satanist and made a bunch of comments in a national magazine on how he/she supports free and wild sex with multiple partners and denounces God and every Christian who has ever walked this planet?

I would totally support the firing. As a PR exec that person is the public face of the company and if he/she is openly denouncing what the company stands for than I think that's more than enough valid reason to can his/her ass. Don't you?

TK has since abandoned his position as erroneous.
You might say he's the "whom" in the phrase "whom said"

Yet the thread goes on. Bizarre.

[MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]

Am I allowed to respond to him?

Please do by all means.

I just love the phrase "whom stated"

 

[Edgetho]

You stated SAG would only pertain to full time people.
And that is false.

And you are right. That is completely false. Absolutely and irrevocably false.

I said that Robertson is probably not a SAG member, or a fulltime employee of A&E. He's likely an independent contractor hired for the specific term of the specific show. They're not going to ask him to run camera on "Hoarders".

About the only way you can avoid the SAG is to leave the Country.

And that's what a LOT of producers do.

You show up for ten minutes on set, whether they use you or not, and it's (app) $800 for the day.

The SAG is THE strongest Union in the Country.

 

[Pogo]

NO !!!!!!!
Not at all you brain dead Dodo bird.

Well, explain. You just said that because Phil "owns the land" the show is filmed on he now "owns the show".

My argument is that A&E - and not Phil - owns the show.

Phil can leave A&E and start his own show, then he will own it. But at the present time he does not.

I did not say it. Katzndogz said it.

As the owner of a building or land you can refuse filming on your property.
That does not mean you own the film or the show.

You can't refuse filming if you're already under contract to do the show, which in this case since the setting is central to the show, almost certainly specifies that locale.

You can refuse it, but then you're in violation of your contract...

 

[peach174]

[MENTION=36318]Edgetho[/MENTION] - are you aware of something called the "Morality Clause"? Goes like this...

MORALITY CLAUSE FOR FILMS - Universal Will Cancel Engagements of Actors Who Forfeit Respect. - Article - NYTimes.com

It has no effect on Phil Robertson who doesn't need the money or the show. Also, if you read the clause carefully it references loses the respect of the public. What of someone who GAINS the respect of the public like Phil Robertson has done.

This particular morality clause does not exactly support your point.

If A&E has a right to fire him for unwanted publicity, and they do. Does the family not also have a right to quit if the network is getting them unwanted publicity or portraying them in an unfavorable light?

Of course they do.

Nope. The rights are all on the side of the Producer, who after all owns the show and the network that puts it out. We did this.

Yes, and the family has the right to not negotiate with a new contract and to go to another network.

 

[koshergrl]

If he doesn't do the show he's in deep doo doo with other parts of the same contract that commits him to do it as they need, so that's wrong too.

You're wrong. WAY wrong.

"
Yesterday Entertainment Weekly claimed that despite his suspension, Robertson will be back on the hugely popular show – which regularly pulls in 12 million viewers – when filming recommences in January.

They quoted a source saying: ‘The network also hopes the media and fan furor will cool down over the holidays and that tensions over shooting future episodes can then be resolved. There’s no negotiation to have; we’re doing the show.’



Read more: Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson says he is a lover not a hater | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

A&E folded like a cheap suit.

Cuz they know they can't penalize him for his faith.

Particularly when they hired him KNOWING this was a huge part of his schtick.

 

[KevinWestern]

This is a wonderful opportunity to illustrate the difference between a Patriotic American and a dimocrap scumbag......

A Patriot will say, "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

A dimocrap scumbag will say, "I disagree with what you say because you are bigot, a homophobe and a redneck. You should lose your job, be subject to public ridicule and held up for scorn. Fuck you, I hate you and I want you to die."

Edge are you really this dumb?

Is Phil going to jail? Are people calling to execute him or deport him? No. He has the freedom to say whatever the heck he wants and I will defend that right until the end.

I have nothing against Phil.

What I am in opposition to is individuals like you who feel that a company/brand like A&E has absolutely NO RIGHTS when it comes to protecting their investments. You're basically telling A&E and all of its stakeholders to "go fuck yourself" and that they're not allowed to run their own company.



.

I could see it if Phil R went out and started screaming about how he hated fags and thought they were all scumbags etc, etc.

But what he did was talk about SIN and SINNERS. There was no hate in his heart or in his words.

The problem with you people is that any speech that doesn't fall within the narrow guidelines you demand OF OTHERS is righteously condemned and the people who spoke it along with it.

But let a group with the right 'status' make fun of gays, and..Hey! It's all just in fun, right?

Saturday Night Live
Christmas Past
Watch Saturday Night Live: Christmas Past online | Free | Hulu

You might think of yourself as a good individual, but you're being controlled by some seriously evil people.

Of course, if you admit it, then you have to admit that you've been wrong your entire life.

Not an easy thing to do. Takes a lot of guts and that's one major reason that people don't change.

Edge, you're missing another very important point. It's going completely over your head.

I read the interview, and really don't think it was that bad or that shocking. It's was just what you'd expect from someone who was a pretty outspoken Christian. However, what happened is that a whole shitload of controversy was drummed up about it. Yes, a lot of his comments were twisted and blown out of proportion but at the end of the day the interview completely blew up.

The fervor was unpredictable, scandalous, and could be viewed as damaging to the A&E brand. Again, A&E has a right to protect itself from this by distancing itself from Phil by suspending him.

This is called business, Edge. Hundreds of millions of dollars are on the line and they need to do what's right for the network. If A&E did nothing they ran the risk of losing a big chunk of its viewers who may view the network as "anti-gay" etc.

What I am not doing is denouncing Phil, or denouncing Christians, or denouncing people who dislike gays.

I'm am simply saying that a company has a right to defend itself.

 

[Pogo]

It has no effect on Phil Robertson who doesn't need the money or the show. Also, if you read the clause carefully it references loses the respect of the public. What of someone who GAINS the respect of the public like Phil Robertson has done.

This particular morality clause does not exactly support your point.

Katz- I'm not saying the firing will or will not have an effect on Phil. The guy has a successful show and if you ask me he should simply leave the network and start his own deal.

I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST PHIL, lol.

My point is the guy ran his mouth in an interview in a way that stirred up unpredictable and unwanted controversy and now A&E has a right to fire him if they wish. Most companies don't like controversy and do all they can to protect themselves from it. I guarantee you he signed something that said "if I stir up negative press, etc, the producers have a right to terminate me".

GQ should not have asked him the question what he viewed as sinful, if some people did not like the answer.

Let's just let this one float on its own....

 

[Pogo]

Katz- I'm not saying the firing will or will not have an effect on Phil. The guy has a successful show and if you ask me he should simply leave the network and start his own deal.

I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST PHIL, lol.

My point is the guy ran his mouth in an interview in a way that stirred up unpredictable and unwanted controversy and now A&E has a right to fire him if they wish. Most companies don't like controversy and do all they can to protect themselves from it. I guarantee you he signed something that said "if I stir up negative press, etc, the producers have a right to terminate me".

GQ should not have asked him the question what he viewed as sinful, if some people did not like the answer.

A&E should have exercised more restraint in who Phil should be allowed to hold interviews with. One would have thought they'd do anything to protect their star. But alas not.

Once again -- the A&E guy wasn't there for the ATV ride with the reporter so... there goes that. I'll repost that article when I get to it but we've done this too.

Of course it would be simpler to keep track of all this if posters didn't insist on creating 368 threads about this single topic...