Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson fired from TV show...

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
dude he has been suspended from his job because of those comments, that is punitive action and a form of censorship, why? because while he can continue to express his perspective he would probably end up losing his job, therefore its indirect censorship but a form of censorship never the less, so while gays can openly frolic around this guy cannot express his opinion without fear of losing his job, thats the reality.

do you think people should be able to say what they want whenever they want without the threat of being sacked or punished???

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are believing the slant put on it by the Gay activist group. You need to read carefully what the magazine reported he said. It did not say what you said. By the way A&E were already using religious censorship by editing out "in Jesus" from his prayers from the show. This was supposed to be a reality show. A&E did not want true reality.

A&E did not want true reality.

Amen to that brutha Hinds

Originally posted by stellspalfie
do you think people should be able to say what they want whenever they want without the threat of being sacked or punished???

It depends if its true or not.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are believing the slant put on it by the Gay activist group. You need to read carefully what the magazine reported he said. It did not say what you said. By the way A&E were already using religious censorship by editing out "in Jesus" from his prayers from the show. This was supposed to be a reality show. A&E did not want true reality.

'true reality show' haahahahahaha are you really that naive??? they are all edited to death, scenes are set up, there is no such thing as a true reality show. can you name me one genuine reality show?

i know nothing of this 'gay activist group' you are talking about. i read the press release from a+e saying they had strong ties with the gay community.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It depends if its true or not.

so you think its okay to censor people if they are speaking (in your opinion) non-truths?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
so you think its okay to censor people if they are speaking (in your opinion) non-truths?

Again it depends upon motive. There is misinformation (unintentional) and disinformation, (deliberately misleading information). I don't believe for a moment that this man was either homophobic or racist in his comments. The article that carried the story that the Gman quoted should be censored because they knowingly and deliberately printed disinformation, he was clearly not equating homosexuality with bestiality as if they are one and the same thing, that again is a deliberate distortion of truth, what he actually said was that both were sinful.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Again it depends upon motive. There is misinformation (unintentional) and disinformation, (deliberately misleading information). I don't believe for a moment that this man was either homophobic or racist in his comments. The article that carried the story that the Gman quoted should be censored because they knowingly and deliberately printed disinf ...[text shortened]... that again is a deliberate distortion of truth, what he actually said was that both were sinful.

you seem to be shifting ground. first you seem to be saying its never okay to censor as its against freedom of speech. then you are saying its okay to censor if they are telling lies, now it depends on the motive of the lies.

it seems like you have your own complex rules about censorship and your original stance of him being censored was against his freedom of speech rights.

if im wrong about you, you need to explain what your rules are regarding censorship in relation to freedom of speech. can you do that?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you seem to be shifting ground. first you seem to be saying its never okay to censor as its against freedom of speech. then you are saying its okay to censor if they are telling lies, now it depends on the motive of the lies.

it seems like you have your own complex rules about censorship and your original stance of him being censored was against his ...[text shortened]... lain what your rules are regarding censorship in relation to freedom of speech. can you do that?

Your not listening my friend. Slow down and read his comments.....

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the right wing manipulators of public opinion

Is it exclusively the so called right wing who are guilty of manipulating public opinion.

Of course not. But go ahead, in this debate, I'll let you make the case for how the left is misrepresenting this situation to manipulate people's opinions.

Originally posted by JS357
Of course not. But go ahead, in this debate, I'll let you make the case for how the left is misrepresenting this situation to manipulate people's opinions.

read the scurrilous Guardian article!

Originally posted by galveston75
Your not listening my friend. Slow down and read his comments.....

ive read his comments he seems unsure on where he stands. he seems to want freedom of speech when it suits him and have rules to stop freedom of speech when it doesnt.

ive asked him to state clearly his views on freedom of speech. it you would like to clarify yours it would help the debate.

do you think his company had the right to sack him?
do you think his company were censoring him?
if so do you think there is ever an occasion for companies to censor employees by sacking them?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
ive read his comments he seems unsure on where he stands. he seems to want freedom of speech when it suits him and have rules to stop freedom of speech when it doesnt.

ive asked him to state clearly his views on freedom of speech. it you would like to clarify yours it would help the debate.

do you think his company had the right to sack him?
do ...[text shortened]...
if so do you think there is ever an occasion for companies to censor employees by sacking them?

They did not have the right unless it was cleary stated in some previously signed contract that "he aggreed to", to not make such comments.
I would never agree to work for such a company that had this type condition, but it's possible there may be some out there that might do this.

Yes if they had told him before by contract or by the action we all see that they took, it was censoring in my opinion.

And yes it is possible that in some instances someone does have the right to censore it's employees on sinsative issues and could let them go if they did not follow those requirements. If you worked for the CIA you would have to agree to a lot of censoring in order to maintain your employment.
But in turn that employer legally does not have the right to request one to sensor their own opinion on such things as a religious viewpoint especially in your own private off time..

Originally posted by stellspalfie
'true reality show' haahahahahaha are you really that naive??? they are all edited to death, scenes are set up, there is no such thing as a true reality show. can you name me one genuine reality show?

i know nothing of this 'gay activist group' you are talking about. i read the press release from a+e saying they had strong ties with the gay community.

GLAAD (formerly the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) is a U.S. non-governmental media monitoring organization which promotes the image of LGBT people in the media. Before March 2013, the name "GLAAD" had been an acronym for "Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation," but became the primary name due to its inclusiveness of bisexual and transgender issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLAAD

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
read the scurrilous Guardian article!

I find no link in this thread.

Edit; but I don't doubt you.

Originally posted by galveston75
They did not have the right unless it was cleary stated in some previously signed contract that "he aggreed to", to not make such comments.
I would never agree to work for such a company that had this type condition, but it's possible there may be some out there that might do this.

Yes if they had told him before by contract or by the action we all ...[text shortened]... ir own opinion on such things as a religious viewpoint especially in your own private off time..

so if you were running a business and one of you employees said something to local newspaper that painted your company in negative light, how would you react? would you sack him, would you tell him not to it again? would you ignore him and let him do it as much as he wanted to?