What is this Duck Dynasty shit going on?

[luvs2lick1385]

All I can say is what do you expect from backwoods, ignorant, bible thumping, inbred rednecks???????

[kmersh]

Preface: I have never read the bible.

With that said, I fail to see the issue as the 1st Amendment which is being bandied about actually from what I can tell does not apply.

Unless A&E has suddenly become a US/State/or Local Government Agency, than the 1st Amendment to US Constitution does not apply as it prevents a Government Agency from making laws which restrict one rights to fee speech.

However A&E is a private business and can do whatever they like (within reason) and if they feel that Mr. Robertson violated their policies they have a right to suspend him, fire him or allow him to continue filming. I am sure that it is specified in his contract with them and as best as I can tell from that perspective he does not have much of a leg to stand on.

A good friend of mine works for a company that explicitly states the company has a morality clause and one can be fired for violating that morality clause. My colleague may or may not agree with that morality clause but as long as he signed the contract he has to abide by it or risk being fired, suspended, or what have you.

The point is Mr. Robertson has a right to his views, whether they are right, wrong or otherwise as long as he is representing himself, once he is representing Duck Dynasty or A&E he has to abide by his employers rules and it appears at least in this case he ran afoul of them.

However, the whole point is somewhat moot as there are nine episodes already in the can and I highly doubt that A&E is going to edit him out of each and every scene where he appears nor do I think A&E is going to edit him out of past episodes that will eventually air as re-runs.

k

[goatman]

These clowns are just trying to stir up the "Culture Wars" more than they've already been stirred...Who somebody else loves & wants to pursue a relationship or relations with isn't hurting these folks...They're just pandering to the home team....And odds are if they haven't read/comprehended the Bill of Rights in the spirit in which it was intended..., then they've haven't done so with the Bible, either.

[broncofan]

The morality clause may seem like a fair warning but it's actually more than an employer is required to give under federal law. Under state law there are sometimes additional protections but they differ from state to state. Generally, employment contracts state that employment is at-will and that an employee can be fired at the discretion of management. Management does not have to provide a reason, but if they are accused of discrimination it helps if they provide a neutral and non-discriminatory one. State law can always be more pro-employee but never fall beneath the protections offered by federal law.

As has been said a few times on this thread, the first amendment prohibits the government from punishing speech. I don't know a lot about this area of law, but this includes civil actions where the power of the state is being brought to bear in enforcing a tort.

For instance, I believe courts have struck down intentional infliction of emotional distress claims on first amendment grounds if the action causing the distress is speech. And while it is true that the state is limited in its ability to prohibit speech that limitation is not absolute even when applied to the government. The state can prohibit speech in certain areas when the prohibitions are content neutral (essentially the legislation is not discriminating based on what is said) or the regulation merely relates to time, place, and manner of speech.

But the main take away is that the first amendment has absolutely no application when applied to the actions of private parties, including private employers. And generally employees do not need to sign a contract with a morality clause for them to be fired in breach of some standard of behavior.

Edit: actually the famous intentional infliction of emotional distress case struck down on first amendment grounds is Hustler v. Falwell. So occasionally the first amendment can prohibit actions brought by one citizen against another but that is because by suing they are trying to bring to bear the power of the state to enforce the suit.

[Barno]

I am with those who have written in this thread that the Duck Dynasty crew have a right to voice their opinions and A & E have a right to react to the voicing of those opinions. This is a free society and you have freedom of speech but don't get all hot and bothered when there is a reaction.

I believe it was Dino Velvet who earlier in this thread compared this to the Dixie Chicks incident from a few years ago. You were dead on correct. Amazingly The Dixie Chicks seemed shocked with the fall out.

I guess the only difference was that the Dixie Chicks actually threw their bomb into the heart of their constituent's crowd and they got rocked as a result. the only thing saving Phil Robertson is he said something that most of his constituents believe.

[broncofan]

I guess the only difference was that the Dixie Chicks actually threw their bomb into the heart of their constituent's crowd and they got rocked as a result. the only thing saving Phil Robertson is he said something that most of his constituents believe.

I agree with you. The ducks' constituents might not mind but they were on a network with a fairly broad base. Unfortunately a company has goodwill that they generate and make use of for all of their products and services. They might want the duck advertising dollars and some of the redneck base it brings, but they don't want to lose the civilized people they already have either.

If only they could figure out a way to pander to the "homosexuality is like bestiality" folks and keep the mainstream audience too. Sometimes you have to make a choice. I guess A&E didn't want to limit themselves to that particular segment of the market.

[Barno]

LOL, yeah you're right. It's a tough tightrope to walk when you're trying to cater to both ends of the spectrum in this country. They've handed out their punishment to Phil (and I believe he should have been) but they are also as we write, showing a marathon of Duck Dynasty episodes on their channel. The Simpsons once had a scene that showed a monkey throwing a bomb into a room full of TV executives. After they blew up they recreated themselves just as Arnold Shwarzenegger did in The Terminator.
How appropriate.


If only they could figure out a way to pander to the "homosexuality is like bestiality" folks and keep the mainstream audience too. Sometimes you have to make a choice. I guess A&E didn't want to limit themselves to that particular segment of the market.[/QUOTE]

[Odelay]

Phil Robertson looks like one of them unkempt shepherds who watched the baby Jesus being born so this is all part of the War on Christmas, in my opinion. A&E is like one of them innkeepers who told the 15 year old virgin Mary to take a hike and slipped her some Planned Parenthood literature as they slammed the door in her face.

[Ben in LA]

Why isn't anyone talking about Justine Sacco's "freedom of speech"? Oh yeah, that's right...

[Ben in LA]

Phil Robertson looks like one of them unkempt shepherds who watched the baby Jesus being born so this is all part of the War on Christmas, in my opinion. A&E is like one of them innkeepers who told the 15 year old virgin Mary to take a hike and slipped her some Planned Parenthood literature as they slammed the door in her face.

He actually looks like one of my co-workers...who happens to be from Alabama...and actually agrees with A&E's decision.