Editor's note: LZ Granderson writes a weekly column for
CNN.com. A senior writer for ESPN and lecturer at Northwestern University, the
former Hechinger Institute fellow has had his commentary recognized by the
Online News Association, the National Association of Black Journalists and the
National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association. Follow him on Twitter @locs_n_laughs.
(CNN) -- Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal got involved in
the "Duck Dynasty" controversy Thursday by
tweeting his response to
A&E's decision to suspend Phil Robertson for his inflammatory remarks in a
recent GQ interview.
"I remember when TV networks believed in the First
Amendment," he wrote, adding, "it is a messed up situation when Miley
Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended."
The truth is it is a messed up situation when a governor rumored
to have his sights on the presidency doesn't understand the breadth of the
First Amendment.
The Federal Communications Commission did not send officials into
the office of Nancy Dubuc, president of A&E Networks. The FBI did not
threaten to put Robertson away, and the Internal Revenue Service didn't freeze
his bank accounts.
This is what the First Amendment protects us from -- laws being
made that restrict freedom of religion, the press and/or speech. It does not
protect us from how society responds to the expression of one's religion, the
press or speech.
Robertson's boss punished him for his remarks. The government
didn't.
Now for those out of the loop, Robertson -- a 67-year-old
Louisiana native and a star of "Duck
Dynasty" who holds a
master's in education -- said, "I never, with my eyes, saw the
mistreatment of any black person," and the black people he worked
with "were godly; they
were happy; no one was singing the blues."
He also compared homosexuality to bestiality and quoted a Bible
verse that essentially said anyone who is an adulterer -- which according to
Matthew 5:32, includes "anyone who marries a divorced woman" -- is
going to hell.
There's a lot to chew on in the interview. (To his credit,
Robertson issued somewhat of a mea culpa which, in part, read, "We are all
created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be
better off if we loved God and loved each other.")
But the interview had a lot for some to be offended by, especially
given the number of black, gay and divorced people there are in the United
States. And while conservatives such as Sarah Palin want to drape Robertson's
remarks with the banner of Christianity, the truth is not everyone who
identifies as a Christian subscribes to anti-gay beliefs.
Just as not everyone who identifies as a Christian believes black
people were happier before the civil rights movement or that marrying a
divorced woman is adultery. This variation in religious expression in general
and Christian denomination in particular are also protected by the First
Amendment.
Not that it really matters.
Robertson didn't falsely yell fire in a crowded theater -- which
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. said was not protected by the
First Amendment back in 1919 -- so he is legally free to say whatever he wants
to GQ about anyone he wants.
But that does not mean he is protected from how people react to what
he says.
People like his bosses.
Or those who make decisions about advertising.
Or viewers.
This is where Jindal -- as well as those who believe Robertson's
suspension violates his constitutional right to free speech -- get it wrong.
You can say some stupid stuff -- whether it's Paula Deen dropping
the N-word, Alec Baldwin dropping the F-word, Jesse Jackson using a derogatory word for Jewish people as he talks about New York
City -- or Bobby Knight infamously saying, "'I think that if rape is inevitable,
relax and enjoy it.'' -- and the First Amendment will keep you from going to
jail. But it is not a get-out-of-jail-free card in the eyes of society.
And if you don't believe me -- try walking into your boss' office
and call him or her a big fat idiot with ugly children.
Then see if "freedom of speech" helps you keep your job.
Connection I made is with the first amendment because he can say whatever he wants without getting in trouble with law and the 9th amendment because the T.V company ran by the people suspended him because there is no constitutional amendment that says they can't and i think it just shows that being on T.V or being a professional sports player makes it really hard because just one slip up of words or one mis worded saying of what you believe can get you suspended from your job which then that person is losing money and from then on out people portray that person as a terrible person.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what to think of this after reading it. All I know is, is that the First Amendment protects you and you are able and aloud to say anything you want about anything you chose to talk about. I believe that people who express their opinion about widely talked about topics need to respect what other people have to say, and should give their opinion on whatever in a respectful manner. Everyone gets to have an opinion, and not everyone has to like it. But everyone needs to be courteous when they give that opinion.
ReplyDeleteThere is always a consequence for your actions. The first amendment prevents government consequences of expressing yourself, even if it is against government, government policy, or society standards. Now, just because you are free from punishment from the government about what you say, and think and how you express yourself doesn't make you safe from consequences of society. No where in the 1st amendment does it say you have to agree with everybody elses ideas. If you say F*** You to your boss, they don't have to deal with that type of behavior or you in general. Other people have freedom too, and part of that freedom is controlling their property or business they way they see fit, following certain guidelines in the constitution, such as no discrimination against races or things like that. Other than that, they have right to decide who works for them and represents their business as they see fit.
ReplyDeleteI agree that some things should be left unsaid, in order to not offend other people, but there is a place and a time to openly discuss your beliefs, and on tv so that the whole nation could see, probably wasnt that good of an idea. Although it is his right to freedom of speech, many people can still be offended and act on it. Just like how there have been many marches supporting birth control and people not, freedom of speech is a right that every individual has, the only issue is that it can't protect you from offending your boss and getting fired. I believe that there is a time and a place to speak of your beliefs without offending people who believe differently.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the first amendment right of freedom of speech is protected in the constitution through the bill of rights, this just means Phil Robertson can't legally be in trouble with the government and face penalties. However, his employers, the television channel, can penalize him; and in this case, they suspended him from the show. If you say something derogatory in this day in age, realize that you will be scrutinized and in some extreme cases, people become alienated through what they say.
ReplyDeleteThis article pretty much sums up that you can say whatever you want from the first amendment and not have any governmental drawbacks, but others in society still have their own opinion and you'll still have to face that; so if you go against a majority or someone above you such as a boss and offend them they can use whatever power they have against you. An example being in the article about people who are or supports homosexuality or marrying divorced women, those people could just stop watching then your ratings go down.
ReplyDeleteI give Phil Robertson a lot of credit for saying the things that he did. He has very strong religious beliefs and political beliefs that often differ from the majority of society. Yet he isn't about to let the pressure or criticism of the world get to him. He used his first amendment rights to tell people what things he sees that are wrong. he stands up for his faith in God despite what everyone else says; just as God has asked us to do. And he speaks with complete honesty about what he has observed with the Black people that he has worked around for a lot more years than the most of us! i give him two thumbs up!
ReplyDeleteThe Duck Dynasty member, who made negative views on homosexuslity among other things, I think was treated fairly in this case. He did have his freedom of speech protected under the First Amendment and did not get thrown in jail for his comments. However, his claims of his boss not understanding the First Amendment is wrong, the government did not interfere as the amendment protects Robertson from. The action of the boss to suspend Robertson is in the right, the boss has the right to suspend/terminate employees they see who create and unsafe work environment with just causes( or ratings of the shows). As for society they are the majority and will voice their opinions and actions (as did Robertson's boss), and the minority being Robertson is going to face major backlash from media and most of society. The majority rule wins in this case but with the respect to the minority rights.
ReplyDeleteit is true that the first amendment protects us from being punished by the government, but it does not protect use from how society views and treats us. however, many people have misinterepreted the goal of the bill of rights and the amendments; the bill of rights protects the people from the government, not the people from the people. for example, if someone were to use a derogatory term amongst groups of people who are of that type, there is no way the government can garuantee that persons protection. unless the public response is chaotic and violent, then the government could step in. however, it won't be to protect that person; it will be to maintain the peace (which is a goal of the government). in the case of Robertson, it was the wrong place and wrong time to state his beliefs. not only did he get punished by his boss, but is now scolded by a large populus.
ReplyDeleteThe first amendment protects Robertson's expression of belief and the right to publicly announce anything almost anything he wants. I can also completely see where he and all of the other people quoted in this article are coming from. THe constitution says the people have the right to speak their mind. I believe Robertson should be able to say what he wants in the interview without being ridiculed. But religion is something that some people may not want to hear about.
ReplyDeleteI think everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and Robertson certainly had his. However, he is indeed under the protection of the first Amendment which covers the freedom of speech, ect (i'm sure everyone knows the rest). On the other side of things people shouldn't get so frazzled on his beliefs... They're HIS! There are many other people that say and believe in far worse things. So how he was treated by others was not just.I understand there are consequences to ones actions, but sometimes people should just let things go.
ReplyDeleteThis article is spot on with it's analysis and insight. The government has no right to take action upon incarcerating or punishing the duck dynasty star and protects him from majority rule by giving him the rights of any given to a minority. When statements are made on television, you are not only representing yourself but the show and channel as a whole as they broadcast it for the world to see. His comment, "I remember when television used to protect a person's first amendment," is outdated and a time when comments like that weren't seen as bad as they are now for the lack of equality and movement during those times if they weren't even made at all. Society has made it's progress and media is more aware than it has been before.
ReplyDeleteAs a change of pace, I won't fully objectify him for what he said on the show. There are many television stations that objectify women. If he chooses to express those views, at least find an atmosphere appropriate for that kind of discriminatory talk. I'm guessing the tv station that shows Duck Dynasty is a fairly tame station, therefore justifying his release from the show. You don't see mtv music videos of Anaconda (Nicki Minaj) on PBS, etc.
I think that Robertson should think before talking, because even if he has freedom of speech it still doesn't mean that he can say whatever he wants. The things he said about the gay, lesbian, blacks and marrying divorced woman I think they were somewhat discriminatory to those persons. It was right that his boss suspended him, because even if he is protected by the first amendment it doesn't change fact that he was talking "....bad..." of other, how people takes this, is up to them.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading the article it seems like, if you say something that views may not stand for you don't get legally in trouble becasue the First Amendment, but the way the public views you is different. They see you as a horrible person, when really it comes down to is opinion. I think that celebrities have to watch what they say if they want viewers to see them as "good" people because what they say could potentially and most likely go out through the media. Which then causes them to either regret it or end up with no job. I think that media likes drama. Anything that someone says who is famous or on tv the media will attack it. Making the
ReplyDeleteWith how they say in this article the main purpose of all this was the act of "Freedom of Speech". For me I love Duck Dynasty, and the cast members are really great people. Yes they are very religious in their own way, they premiered in the movie "God Is Not Dead". They have their rights of coming on and saying what they believe to be right such as quoting from the bible. But like how it is there is an extent. Just like how the article said the government didn't punish Robertson but his boss did. The government are always on a short leash when it comes to doing what they are supposed to do when they have to remember the rights of others. Yes having the freedom of speech can help you in some situations but having it for an ignorant reason isn't what it's there for.
ReplyDeleteThe man from Duck Dynasty didn't commit any real crimes, he simply expressed his right to freedom of speech and spoke his own opinion. This connects with our lesson because, it talks about his rights to the First Amendment. Although he is protected by this amendment, he is not protected from others that can deeply affect his career. In my opinion people shouldn't get offended by what he is saying, because nobody know god's true will for us on Earth. This man can be wrong but he can also be right, so as long as we are oblivious to what the real plan for us, we can do whatever we please because the lord also granted free will to all to find their own path.
ReplyDeleteThat was pretty ignorant of that governor to say that Robertson's 1st Amendment rights were violated, they obviously were not since his responses were actually published. It is a bit difficult to say that I believe Robertson did receive unfortunate treatment from his boss. Because while Paula Deen got what she deserved for using a racist term in a racist way, I think that Robertson was just expressing his opinion, and people do that all the time. I can complain to Nickelodeon about things that have offended me on their cartoons, but I don't. The thing is, just because someone expresses an opinion that is unpopular to the majority does not mean they should lose their job because of it. It is different when what they say is intentionally applied to be offensive. While what happened to Robertson violated no amendments, it is still an unfortunate thing, in my opinion. With this constant flow of celebrities losing their jobs because of racist, sexist, homophobic, or other discriminatory remarks, the issue may be coming close to the policy agenda, although how it would be addressed is a mystery to me.
ReplyDeleterobertson was stating his opinions a right he has (1st ammendment) and by the books he wasn't imposing on someone elses rights what he said wasn't agreeable and might've made me mad but he was just excersing his rights so he shouldn't have gotten fired thats all i can say without getting personal.
ReplyDeleteThis article describes the lesson from this perfectly, you may be protected (in 98% of cases) by the government in saying anything you may want to, but that does not exclude you from people's reactions and the consequences your statement may bring. If you work at a restaurant it is common knowledge that you treat your guests with kindness and respect. Sure you can flip them off and call them a whore and what not, but will your boss appreciate that? Will he/she fire you? Yes he/she sure will and should. This is exactly what this article is about. Duck Dynasty as a show is a business and a business needs to maintain a reputation to keep doing business because that's their goal, to make money. The Duck Dynasty was not helping the business aspect of the show so he was punished. That's a logical decision. Though, does he have the right to say it? Of course he does. This issue is more about business than the first amendment really. You can say anything, but be aware of how what you say may be perceived.
ReplyDeleteThe Duck Dynasty guy* Excuse me.
DeleteThis is a problem faced by many people every year, and it is something I have seen in my daily life. Just around school you'll see or hear someone do something, then when they receive a negative response, they cry "free country!"It's stupid really how people see the Bill of RIghts as their personal get out of jail free card, as the article put it. They don't understand that while the first ten amendments may literally keep you out of jail, it will not prevent you from being condemned by society.This goes back to one of the initial problems with America, which is the ignorance of our citizens and their frequent ability to take advantage of rights that they can't possibly appreciate as much as people in other countries. If we as a nation were better educated and partook in voting and politics more often, then misunderstandings and ignorant statements would not be commonplace, and we would be a more productive country.
ReplyDeleteRobertson definitely has his right to say what he wants through his first amendment rights. But just like the article said that doesn't cover how society will react and what they will say about your values. This is one way I think technology has changes the way government acts upon things, issues are coming up on the internet or t.v. that the government hasn't had to deal with in the past. Like the article said Robertson's first amendment rights weren't violated when he got suspended from the show, that was his bosses decision to make for his company. The Bill of Rights can only cover so much with how our society has changed.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure this is just technology changing things, because if you said something to a reporter in any other time period, if anything you ever said spread to the common masses, it would probably be that. As a public icon, he should've paid attention to his image more.
DeleteI agree with the fact that the first amendment protects us from many things and that a person can say what ever he or she wants to but that doesnt make it right. Even though every day we express ourselves on this way. I dont agree however that his first amendment was violated because everything that he said on this issue was published. It sucks that he lost his job but thats the way of life. its not fair and wasnt meant to be fair. This is where the phrase "pick and choose your battles wisely comes in hand". People should seriously thake that into consideration.
ReplyDeletePhil did not lose his job, he is back on the show and is the founder of a multi-million dollar company called "Duck Commander."
DeleteI don't think that there's really any argument to be made here. Obviously anyone who understands the freedom speech knows that A&E was in no violation of the legal or even philosophical concept behind their actions. Yes, you are allowed freedom of speech as an American citizen, but what you say, especially in a professional environment, effects how you're treated or what job you have. It's like going into a job interview with someone and yelling obscenities. I have the right to do, but I'm obviously not going to get the job. This is especially true in terms of things like reality TV, where a person's opinions, personality, and life are what you're selling. There was no obstruction of his rights, whatsoever, simply a decision that his beliefs didn't match the goals of his employer.
ReplyDeleteWhen this was all over the news, I looked into it. I watched the video of this interview, and the line that says "anyone who marries a divorced woman" -- is going to hell, is false. Notice how "anyone who marries a divorced woman" is in quotes, and "is going to hell" is not. Phil had said that anyone who marries a divorced woman is committing adultery, and whoever edited this, or interviewed him, falsely paraphrased Phil in this interview. Don't trust everything you read on the internet. Watch the video, you will agree with me. But it was not right for A&E to try and kick Phil off of the show for using his right to free speech.
ReplyDeleteSituations like this are tough. Interpreting the constitution is fine and easily misinterpreted. Yes, robinson is free to say what he wants too. He is protected from the government. But he is not employed by the government. A&E Choose to suspend him and thats their choice. They did not violate any constitutional right given to the people. So when viewers say that the decision to suspend phil was a violation of his rights, I just think of how ignorant they are. They just dont know or they dont know what there rights are and what they mean.
ReplyDeleteI think it deleted or lost my comment, so here goes again: Essentially, it's fair for Robertson to express his opinion as per the First Amendment. However, taking advantage of a certain right really makes my blood boil. Freedom of the press lets this be published, and if you willingly say something you know will stir the public's emotions, then you're simply making a stupid choice to get a majority group angry at you.
ReplyDeleteI believe that everything that happened was okay. He spoke his mind, he wasn't causing any real damage obviously he was going going to hurt some feelings. I feel like you're going to hurt somebody's feelings no matter what you say. You can't make everyone happy. And as a result he got fired, which I believe is also fine. He didn't get into any real trouble. it's not like he got arrested. He should've been more cautious because it is really up to her what goes. The same way that in school we have a dress code and I can get in trouble for wearing something like a shirt with a naked girl on it even though I have the freedom constitutional to do so. I can still wear that shirt out of school. There is a time and a place for certain things and people shouldn't be so upset about it.
ReplyDeleteHe has a right to say his opinion. And just becauses on TV doesn't mean that he agrees with the majority. He was and still is protected by the 1st amendment, the freedom of speech and people can either agree with him or not. But you can't prosecute someone for saying what they believe in. He had the right to say that. And he can quote the bible too the constitution protects us there too, Freedom of religion. Personally i think that some people over exaggerated what he said. People shouldn't loose their job over a opinion, whether its constiverutal or not. HE has the right to his opinion so get over it. I don't agree with what some people decided to do on TV but i don't want them to lose their job over there opinion that is protected by the constitution.
ReplyDeleteSo, all Robertson really did was state his opinions on shaky topics, most people don't to talk about because of the way they may be perceived to others. But isn't that the purpose of the 1st Amendment in the first place. To say what you believe, without being punish or viewed differently then someone else who has the opposite opinions then you do.
ReplyDeleteWith such a controversial topic as religion and homosexuality, there was bound to be some kind of reaction from the general public. Whereas there would be an undeniable uproar; how the government handled it wasn't proper. With our first amendment rights, it is a given that we as citizens are able to say just about anything ( whether it be on national television, the internet, or in private ) since we have that freedom of speech. Now, while the majority rules what the Duck Dynasty star said wrong, he has his minority rights that protect him from incarceration.
ReplyDeleteThis relates similarly to the article about the man who burned an American flag. Many people were upset and had a negative reaction to the flag burning, but since it was a way he was expressing his freedom of speech, he was protected by minority rights. The Duck Dynasty star was simply stating his opinion; given whether or not people agree with it.
I completely agree with the thought of this article when it says, "This is what the First Amendment protects us from -- laws being made that restrict freedom of religion, the press and/or speech. It does not protect us from how society responds to the expression of one's religion, the press or speech." You may be able to say what you want to anyone, however, it doesn't mean it will give positive views towards you. If you were taken to court for saying something, then that's unconstitutional because it's restricting your freedom. I do feel like it was wrong to punish Robertson for what he said, but people shouldn't ask his opinions in interviews like that if they weren't going to accept Robertson's opinions. You may not have to agree with what he believes in, but at least allow him to have his own views while you still have yours. It's not like he was trying to preach to everyone saying that their opinions on homosexuality were wrong and he was right. All that poor guy did was say his opinion and support why that was his opinion. It was basically the interviewer's fault.
ReplyDeleteI think it is necessary to make the distiction between whether or not Robersons rights were violated. I don't think they were because the first Amendment's purpose is to defend us from the government, not reprucutions of popular opinion. We do have the freedom of say what we want to whoever we want but that doesn't mean it is wise to do so. The purpose of the first amendment doesn't protect us from what others may do in response to what we say. So Roberson's comments may have offended some viewers, but AMC has the right to do what it needs in order to keep viewer watching.
ReplyDeleteAlthough his comments were inconsiderate of the vast population his comments pertain to, Robertson did not break any laws. It is his first amendment rights of freedom and expression of religion that allows him to say such things. What he said during that interview was his own opinion and he has the right to express them despite the reaction of others. I am not saying that no one should be offended by his remarks or react to them. Afterall, it is also their right to express their feelings towards Robertson's beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this article wholeheartedly. Phil Robertson spoke his mind and was punished for it, but he wasn't punished by the government. He just lost his job, and was torn to pieces on social media by SJWs. This is... Unfortunate but it's fair. Being an influential man on television, he had every move he made under a microscope. I don't think he understood that.
ReplyDeleteComing from someone that read the interview, Robertson said some incredibly offending things, i wasn't incredibly offended because he didn't say anything that applies to me but we all can still acknowledge he said some pretty offensive comments. Should he lose his job? I don't know, i'm sure there are some people that never want to see his on television again, but everything he said was protected by the first amendment. It's not suprising that receievd harsh criticism. Anytime you speak your mind on a controversial topic you can expect backlash. now i have to finish, go hawks.
ReplyDeleteWhat Robertson said was offensive to some but it was his opinion and we have freedom of speech so he can't get in trouble for it. (mine got deleted so i had to write this in like 2 seconds thats why its so short)
ReplyDeleteComing from reading the interview, what Robertson said was highly offensive to some people, but it was acknowledged to his own opinion, using the First Amendment. But making this a reason for him to lose his job based on the offensive comments he made? It varies how well the consequences for his words will back to him.
ReplyDeleteRobertson did in fact say some hurtful things that honestly were not necessary the slightest bit. But no, he should not lose his job. He had every right to speak his thoughts, thanks to the first amendment. Although he did receive hate for what had been said, he shouldn't receive any type of punishment for it.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened all depended on what his boss thought. His boss chose to punish him. If it was the government's decision they couldn't have done anything about it bcs it is his right to freedom of speech. With harsh statements comes harsh criticism. I dont have an opinion on this.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that Robertson broke any laws saying what he did he was just using his first amendment and gave his perspective to the whole thing. I do not believe that he should lose his job over it maybe lose some fans... What he said could have easily offended some but he does have his first amendment rights so i do not think he cause a crime.
ReplyDeleteThis connects to what we've been learning because it specifically talks about the first amendment and freedom of speech. While I might not agree with some of the things he might've said, I do believe that he was treated unfairly. The constitution clearly states that he has the freedom to have his own opinions, beliefs, etc. and all he did was voice them. He definitely shouldn't have lost his job for something like that. Unfortunately, we live in a society where if somebody doesn't agree with you on something, they're automatically wrong and can end up losing all sorts of things.
ReplyDeleteThis article addresses that even though everyone in America has the freedom of speech, that doesn't mean people are going to want to listen nor do they have to. The celebrities that have made offensive comments to the public may have had the freedom to say that, but that doesn't mean people are going to accept it. People have the right to react to it just as they have the right to say it. The government cant get involved in what they say, but the media, the people and the employer/sponsor of them can decide whether or not to back the person up, or to even go against them.
ReplyDeleteThis directly applies with the first Amendment and thats freedom of speech. Everything he said he is protected from going to jail, but he isn't protected from losing air time. If you say things that are going to offend people you can not just expect people not to be angry or mad at you. He deserves some sort of punishment being the man he is and how many people watch him in television, he can't say those things then continue on in the show because people would then think its okay to bash other people's religion and views on certain topics.
ReplyDeleteRobertson made some insensitive and cruel comments during the interview and a lot of people I am sure would take offense. But we are allowed by the first amendment to have freedom of speech but it does not guarantee you will keep your job. This has to do with media and since a lot of people watch duck dynasty, then they may not have as much viewers as they would've if he never said those things. I will say that everyone has their opinion and those just happened to be his and so I don't think he should loose his job over it.
ReplyDeleteI think what Robertson said is a little out there, and pretty offensive, but he does have the right to say what is on his mind. He is older, and therefore believes different things, and has older values. You can't blame him for thinking a different way when he grew up in different times. Much like the Federalist papers, he had a strong position on a subject. The authors of those papers influenced many, even with the stinging words they posses. The authors are regarded as founding fathers, and as heros. How can you make some one a bad person for saying what they believe?
ReplyDeleteI agree with what the article is saying. The First Amendment protects us from the government, but not peoples reactions. We have a right to say whatever we want, but just because we can't get arrested for it doesn't mean that there are no repercussions. Robertson had the right to say how he felt, but as a popular figure on television maybe he should have thought twice before saying it. The network had the right to suspend him because they have to worry about their public image. The First Amendment can only protect us from the government trying to take away our freedom of speech. The First Amendment does not protect you against public opinion, or your employer reacting to you using your freedom of speech unwisely.
ReplyDeleteI understand that what Phil Robertson said was offensive but it was his opinion. Everyone has a right to their own opinion and under the first amendment he has freedom of speech. Do i agree that it was right that he lost his job? N because he has every right to say what he wants to say. Now him being criticised for what he said i think he deserves. He should know by know what is and isnt appropriate to say during and interview.
ReplyDeleteJust because the first amendment grants us freedom of speech, doesn't mean there won't be consequences for what was said. I don't think he should be fired. I'm sure he's learned his lesson. He should still be able to say what he wants, but now he should know not to say it to the world without expecting angry outbursts and consequences.
ReplyDeleteThis article is very enlightening. It helps clarify a confusing issue about the first amendment regarding freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The first amendment can keep one out of jail for saying offensive comments liker Robertson did, however it cannot protect one from the outrage of the public. The television network can choose what they wish to show, which does not violate the first amendment.
ReplyDeleteThere isn't any political dilemma in this case, its as simple as Robertson voicing his opinion on very sensitive matters, and there is no law in our government preventing that right, nor will there be; it's not unconstitutional to say those things, nor unlawful, not even if everyone heard it. In terms of ethics, however, the fault goes to Robertson and (possibly) in effect A&E.
ReplyDeletePhil Robertson did speak his mind and has the right too. But he probably doesn't realize how badly it hurt him for doing that. He lost his job and got a bad reputation but he was speaking his mind and he was protected by the First amendment. If you speak your mind on a topic like that he should have known what was coming for him in the future. Of course something like that will get the attention of the media because that show was very popular. The government couldn't do anything about what he said because he was protected by the 1st amendment.
ReplyDeleteRobertson's first amendment rights were not violated because he was not detained, nor was he given any kind of punishment or sentencing by the law.... Which is what the first amendment protects. His minority rights were not infringed because no action was taken against him. A television company has every right to fire an employee if they feel that person is a detriment to company function or image. At no point in the constitution is a single word said about people having the right to keep a job, or a right to not be criticized by the public.
ReplyDeleteMany may say that what Robertson said is offensive to them but some may not care or take offense to what he said. And honestly that was his right to amendment 1, freedom of speech and religion. Some may not like what he said but they have to understand he had the right to say what he said and didn't break any laws at all. And I'm not saying that what he said was right, I'm just saying he had the right to say what he wanted to say and anyone can say what the want or state their opinion to an extent. It is amendment one which is written in the Bill of Rights.
ReplyDeleteI think it's right to protect our First Amendment rights, but I don't think it was right for him to say such offensive things, especially since he was being interviewed in public. Just because we have the freedom of speech it doesn't mean we can just say offensive comments here and there. I think what the bosses at AE did was right because those comments were unnecessary. His First Amendment weren't violated at all, but his comments most likely offended a lot of people, so the bosses were not in the wrong on this one.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking on controversial topics always has a backlash. He stated his opinion and he has the right too but that doesn't mean people are going to be okay with the way he feels about certain topics. Everybodys believes are different so everybody feels differently about his comments. i feel the network can suspend him because he made the network look bad by his remarks in his interview and they don't want that to be a problem for them.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the article. Everyone has their own opinions, even though what Robertson said was offensive, its his opinion. You can't stop him from saying what he wants to say or what he believes. Yes the first amendment gives us the freedom of speech but Robertson wasn't punished by the government, he was punished by his boss. He is entitled to what he wants to say and about what he believes. Yet when it comes to controversial topics there is a lot to be said to add to that topic, and with that comes some sort of rude comments and hatred.
ReplyDeleteEven though he is protected under the first amendment to say what ever he wants, there are times that saying your beliefs are inappropriate. This was one of those times, the comments he said in GQ didn't need to be said to the media. It is just common courtesy that those are beliefs you keep to yourself or close people to you. Yes he had the right to say it but its just common practice not to say those kinds of things to the media where they will blow it up and everyone will hear what was said. His beliefs are his beliefs but he should have kept them to himself to save all the trouble that followed the interview.
ReplyDeleteI suppose that its alright for Robertson to speak his opinion although it clashes with some of the public opinion. Since he has the right of freedom of speech from the first amendment, he really can't be punished for his thoughts. Although he did say some things that made people angry or uncomfortable for some, he shouldn't have been fired. It's his right to speak his mind no matter what people think. However you can't control what others feel about you. People can bash on him (verbally) because of it too and they are protected by the first amendment, but they can't fire him for it. People should really just think of the consequences of what your words can do though.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the article. Everyone has their right to their own opinion. Robertson spoke his mind and was punished but not by the government. Although you do have your first amendment rights, you should be still wary of what others may think about the words you have spoken. Either way with how things are today, everything you say will be offensive to someone and someone will hold that against you.
ReplyDeleteIn this article Robertson expressed his first amendment right which is freedom of speech but the people didn't quite agree to what he had said. He said what he said because that's how he feels about his religion and he can do that. I don't think he tried to offend anyone on purpose but it may have come out differently than he intended because he say that we are all better off loving God and loving each other and that he loves humanity.
ReplyDeleteEven though Robertson's viewers might not have been so pleased to hear of his opinions on such touchy subjects, he hadn't broken any laws sharing his opinion because of the 1st amendment and his right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. He was expecting to receive harsh criticism especially from the social media because being so well known, people pay closer attention to what Robertson says and does. Should he lose his job because he voiced his opinion on something? No.
ReplyDeleteI think that his freedom of speech was violated, he was punished by his bosses not the government. He said harsh and insensitive things that offended many people so he received backlash. As for his job, I think his bosses suspended him for business reasons. They were probably being affected by the issue and suffering losses.
ReplyDeleteThough I haven't actually heard the interviews with Robertson, I can safely assume what he said was extremely offensive to some people in our nation. I can agree that it is also protected by our first amendment, but some seem to forget that the 1st amendment protects us from getting arrested. It doesn't save us from the horrible things that society has to say about it. By screaming, "it violates his 1st amendment rights", I think of the court case, Plessy vs. Ferguson because Ferguson believe his 14th amendment rights were violated, but that right only protects the legal aspects, not the social. You can compare it to everyone saying that Robertson's rights were violated. Those rights protect you from legal repercussions..not social. I also believe that A&E was right for suspending him because he represents the channel, and his views aren't the views of that particular TV station. I also really enjoyed the last few sentences of the article because you really cant say whatever you want if you want to keep your job or your friends.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what the article said. Robertson may have offended some people, but it is his freedom of speech to say whatever he wants. The government can not do anything about what he said because of his rights. Although, his boss had the right to fire him. Just because there is freedom of speech doesn't mean it is professional to say certain things in a work environment. You have the right to speak your mind but there is an appropriate time to do so.
ReplyDeleteAlthough some of his comments for his interview was uncalled for he has his rights to speak his mind freely. Robertson said what he thought needed to be said, and nobody can really do anything about it because if they arrest him, or try to put him on trail that is obviously violating the first amendment. He had the time to speak freely, and whoever is hurt by his comments have there own time to speak freely about what they think about him, and what he said.
ReplyDeleteWhat Robertson said may have been offensive, but at the end of the day he has the right to say what he wants. I don't think losing his job was necessary because it's not going to stop him from saying more offensive things. On the other hand I do feel like losing his job can teach him a life lesson, because if your in the public eye, anything you say will be used against you and you have to be ready for the reactions that come with it. At the end of the day everyone has their own opinion on everything.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what the article said. Robertson may have offended some people, but it is his freedom of speech to say whatever he wants. The government can not do anything about what he said because of his rights. Although, his boss had the right to fire him. Just because there is freedom of speech doesn't mean it is professional to say certain things in a work environment. You have the right to speak your mind but there is an appropriate time to do so.
ReplyDeleteWhile what he said was protected by the 1st Amendment, meaning the government can't punish him for whatever he says, that doesn't mean that it protects you against society, and that's really what got Robertson. The fact that he was saying these things on TV, shows to me that he felt he was protected full by the 1st Amendment, but I feel what he didn't take into consideration, was the public eyes, who can put anyone in a good social position, or a bad one, and he was instantly put into the bad one after his interview.
ReplyDelete