Tolerance: Allowing people to be who and what they are.

[Plasmaball]

Why would someone protest if they thought A&E took the correct actions albeit for monetary reasons?

Yes A&E discovered their viewers felt the same way the duck guy does. Thats how it works. I bet that also taught the duck guy to watch what he says in public and A&E is probably already looking to create more shows that cater to open minded individuals to replace the revenue stream.

A&E is about making money. Their decisions reflected that in both moves.

Principle. Glaad protested Phil and the Phil likers protested Glaad..

Nobody is going anywhere. I doubt they will loose viewers. The thing people dont understand is after a week people forget and move onto the next drama.

That is true. Our society has the attention span of a gnat. The only good thing is that we are now aware of where the duck guy and A&E stand.

we always knew where they stood, least i did. Dont worry the next media outrage is already about to happen.

 

[Derideo_Te]

all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want.

You already said that

Just say it, folks. Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.

Just say it, it's okay. We already know.

.

Society has the right to mold itself into whatever form it believes is right. That was true when taxpayers chose to revolt against what they saw as British oppression. It was also true when blacks chose to revolt against southern oppression. The intimidation in both of those instances took the form of physical violence against transgressors which makes them extreme but the principle is the same.

Society today is going through a phase where it is shrugging off the oppression of gays. Granted the oppressive violence against gays was not on the same scale but it existed all the same. The societal oppression of gays was far more insidious.

So yes, now that the majority of society has realized that it is just as wrong to oppress gays as it was to oppress blacks and women and taxpayers it is transforming itself. Like any transformation it involves turmoil and conflict and it makes some people unhappy.

But as you have said many times in this thread it is better that this is openly discussed in a civilized manner than the alternative.

 

[Plasmaball]

Just say it, folks. Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.

Just say it, it's okay. We already know.

.

With a slight correction I have admitted it several times. Speech that denigrates and slows down progress.

There ya go, I appreciate your honesty.

I don't know what Plasmaball is so afraid of.

.

im for the free market to decide what happens. I really dont give a shit what you say out in public, just dont come crying like a little baby when the reaction is negative.

 

[R.D.]

this isnt a free speech issue nor is any of this. Phil, and everyone else who the OP listed still have their freedom of speech intact. For the love of dogs you cant even get that right, how do you even expect to have any of the rest right?

It certainly is about shutting him down...based on what he said. Be honest.

they wanted him off the air yes, but that didnt take away his freedom of speech. Need not to confuse the two.

That's true, they don't have that ability. What they actually infringed on were his civil rights. No too smart. Hence the back peddling. Smart

 

[Asclepias]

Principle. Glaad protested Phil and the Phil likers protested Glaad..

Nobody is going anywhere. I doubt they will loose viewers. The thing people dont understand is after a week people forget and move onto the next drama.

That is true. Our society has the attention span of a gnat. The only good thing is that we are now aware of where the duck guy and A&E stand.

we always knew where they stood, least i did. Dont worry the next media outrage is already about to happen.

I never heard of the show until this little episode but yes there is a constant supply of controversial events lined up for public consumption so we wont focus on whats really going on.

 

[Plasmaball]

It certainly is about shutting him down...based on what he said. Be honest.

they wanted him off the air yes, but that didnt take away his freedom of speech. Need not to confuse the two.

That's true, they don't have that ability. What they actually infringed on were his civil rights. No too smart. Hence the back peddling. Smart

what civil rights? he signed a contract.

 

[R.D.]

they wanted him off the air yes, but that didnt take away his freedom of speech. Need not to confuse the two.

That's true, they don't have that ability. What they actually infringed on were his civil rights. No too smart. Hence the back peddling. Smart

what civil rights? he signed a contract.

There is no contract that can trump the law.

Not to my knowledge

 

[Plasmaball]

That's true, they don't have that ability. What they actually infringed on were his civil rights. No too smart. Hence the back peddling. Smart

what civil rights? he signed a contract.

There is no contract that can trump the law.

Not to my knowledge

what civil right?

 

[Derideo_Te]

That's true, they don't have that ability. What they actually infringed on were his civil rights. No too smart. Hence the back peddling. Smart

what civil rights? he signed a contract.

There is no contract that can trump the law.

Not to my knowledge

Your employer can make you sign a contract not to say anything that will cause your employer any loss of reputation and/or income and can legally terminate your employment if you violate that contract.

So if you work for ACME, inc and you go on Facebook or Twitter and post that ACME makes lousy explosives that always blow up in the coyote's face ACME can fire you.

Yes, those contracts actually exist and they are perfectly legal.

 

[alisonxanderson]

human has destroying nature but stimulus are increasing in our society to rose these behavior.

 

[R.D.]

what civil rights? he signed a contract.

There is no contract that can trump the law.

Not to my knowledge

Your employer can make you sign a contract not to say anything that will cause your employer any loss of reputation and/or income and can legally terminate your employment if you violate that contract.

So if you work for ACME, inc and you go on Facebook or Twitter and post that ACME makes lousy explosives that always blow up in the coyote's face ACME can fire you.

Yes, those contracts actually exist and they are perfectly legal.

Red herring. His expressed views to GQ have zero reflection on A&E. They are not a competing religion or moral authority as much as they might like to believe

 

[Plasmaball]

There is no contract that can trump the law.

Not to my knowledge

Your employer can make you sign a contract not to say anything that will cause your employer any loss of reputation and/or income and can legally terminate your employment if you violate that contract.

So if you work for ACME, inc and you go on Facebook or Twitter and post that ACME makes lousy explosives that always blow up in the coyote's face ACME can fire you.

Yes, those contracts actually exist and they are perfectly legal.

Red herring. His expressed views to GQ have zero reflection on A&E. They are not a competing religion or moral authority as much as they might like to believe

irrelevant, you don't have the contract in front of you, thus you cant provide the actual section where he is allowed to do so. I can not provide evidence to the contrary, so its a moot point really.

 

[R.D.]

what civil rights? he signed a contract.

There is no contract that can trump the law.

Not to my knowledge

what civil right?

section 7 of the civil rights act: EC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.


Like it or not our laws apply to everyone.

 

[R.D.]

Your employer can make you sign a contract not to say anything that will cause your employer any loss of reputation and/or income and can legally terminate your employment if you violate that contract.

So if you work for ACME, inc and you go on Facebook or Twitter and post that ACME makes lousy explosives that always blow up in the coyote's face ACME can fire you.

Yes, those contracts actually exist and they are perfectly legal.

Red herring. His expressed views to GQ have zero reflection on A&E. They are not a competing religion or moral authority as much as they might like to believe

irrelevant, you don't have the contract in front of you, thus you cant provide the actual section where he is allowed to do so. I can not provide evidence to the contrary, so its a moot point really.

No so. But do you honestly believe he signed aways his rights to express and practice his faith?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want.

You already said that

Just say it, folks. Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.

Just say it, it's okay. We already know.

.

No one is seeking to do any such thing, and no one is seeking to ‘shut down’ speech he doesn’t like.

In fact, quite the opposite is being advocated.

What is being advocated is a free, unbridled, full-throated exchange of ideas in the context of a free, private, and democratic society – nothing more.

That’s why there’s no such thing as ‘political correctness,’ because all views are valid, all ideas are equal, and all members of private society will evaluate the merits of the ideas and views expressed to determine what is appropriate and what is not.

 

[Derideo_Te]

There is no contract that can trump the law.

Not to my knowledge

Your employer can make you sign a contract not to say anything that will cause your employer any loss of reputation and/or income and can legally terminate your employment if you violate that contract.

So if you work for ACME, inc and you go on Facebook or Twitter and post that ACME makes lousy explosives that always blow up in the coyote's face ACME can fire you.

Yes, those contracts actually exist and they are perfectly legal.

Red herring. His expressed views to GQ have zero reflection on A&E. They are not a competing religion or moral authority as much as they might like to believe

He was interviewed by GQ because he was employed by A&E. If he had been self employed there would have been no issue but he was an active employee of A&E at the time.

The only red herring is this deflection of yours into utter irrelevancy;

They are not a competing religion or moral authority as much as they might like to believe

 

[Plasmaball]

There is no contract that can trump the law.

Not to my knowledge

what civil right?

section 7 of the civil rights act: EC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.


Like it or not our laws apply to everyone.

thats thin..if you can prove it. Thats if he didnt sign in his contract a public speaking clause.

 

[Derideo_Te]

There is no contract that can trump the law.

Not to my knowledge

what civil right?

section 7 of the civil rights act: EC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.


Like it or not our laws apply to everyone.

None of the above applies in this instance.

 

[Plasmaball]

Red herring. His expressed views to GQ have zero reflection on A&E. They are not a competing religion or moral authority as much as they might like to believe

irrelevant, you don't have the contract in front of you, thus you cant provide the actual section where he is allowed to do so. I can not provide evidence to the contrary, so its a moot point really.

No so. But do you honestly believe he signed aways his rights to express and practice his faith?

he didnt so irrelevant again.

 

[Derideo_Te]

what civil right?

section 7 of the civil rights act: EC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.


Like it or not our laws apply to everyone.

thats thin..if you can prove it. Thats if he didnt sign in his contract a public speaking clause.

Highly unlikely since lawyers include those as a matter of course these days to protect the employer.