Author Topic: Juan Williams: Right Wanted Bashir, Maher Fired, But ‘Cry Foul’ Over Duck Dynasty Star?  (Read 14110 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Oceander

  • Guest
Robertson was being interviewed because he's on the show, and that is the primary difference between those tweets and this interview.

Robertson's thoughts on homosexuality are well-known, and documented, but came prior to his involvement with A&E.

In that video Robertson states that:

One is free to believe that, and to even say it, but you're not free from the backlash of saying things like that.



I didn't say that there weren't differences; however, without having the exact contract language in front of us, and with neither of us having a great deal of experience or expertise in drafting, negotiating, or litigating these sorts of clauses, the chance that he might have a claim that would survive a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment cannot be completely discounted.

Offline Cincinnatus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,513
ROTFLMBO: Of course I haven't seen that contract. I don't need to actually see [it to tell you what's in it]

Liberal Logic 101:

Call for the firing of a TV star because his Faith teaches him that homosexuality is immoral.

Invite the President of Iran, who has ordered the hanging, stoning and burning to death of 1000's of people for being homosexual, to Columbia University as a keynote speaker.



How about another one just for old time's sake?

We shall never be abandoned by Heaven while we act worthy of its aid ~~ Samuel Adams

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
I didn't say that there weren't differences; however, without having the exact contract language in front of us, and with neither of us having a great deal of experience or expertise in drafting, negotiating, or litigating these sorts of clauses, the chance that he might have a claim that would survive a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment cannot be completely discounted.

Time will tell I guess.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Oceander

  • Guest
Time will tell I guess.

It will.  I tend to agree that he doesn't have a strong claim, just that he has a colorable claim.  Certainly he couldn't force them to put him back on the show.

Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,621
  • Gender: Male
  • Your what hurts??
Again, I believe this was more about Robertson's Christian values than anything he said about homosexuals, although that is what he is supposedly being scapegoated for. 

Oceander

  • Guest
Again, I believe this was more about Robertson's Christian values than anything he said about homosexuals, although that is what he is supposedly being scapegoated for. 

Then why would they have had him on the show in the first place?  Clearly they saw sufficient value to the relationship to "overlook" his values; it was only when he went one step further and made the comments that the value of the relationship took a nose dive in A&E's eyes.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Again, I believe this was more about Robertson's Christian values than anything he said about homosexuals, although that is what he is supposedly being scapegoated for.

The producers were well aware of Robertson's views. You don't sign up an entire family to do a TV show in your network without doing due diligence on the people you're about to get into bed with, but (as it is nearly always the case with these reality based shows) you take the chance that the personality will not destroy the show before enough money has been made from it to justify the decision.

A&E was successful in containing Phil's views so long as it was able to dole out his personal brand in edited one half hour portions, but the GQ article exposed many more people that probably aren't fans of the show to Phil's views on subject of homosexuality, forcing the network to deal with his views in a much broader, less controllable universe of social media, forums and facebook.

The network was forced to protect its advertisers and corporate values.

They fired Phil.

   

« Last Edit: December 23, 2013, 05:27:48 am by Luis Gonzalez »
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Oceander

  • Guest
The producers were well aware of Robertson's views. You don't sign up an entire family to do a TV show in your network without doing due diligence on the people you're about to get into bed with, but (as it is nearly always the case with these reality based shows) you take the chance that the personality will not destroy the show before enough money has been made from it to justify the decision.

A&E was successful in containing Phil's views so long as it was able to dole out his personal brand in edited one half hour portions, but the GQ article exposed many more people that probably aren't fans of the show to Phil's views on subject of homosexuality, forcing the network to deal with his views in a much broader, less controllable universe of social media, forums and facebook.

The network was forced to protect its advertisers and corporate values.

They fired Phil.


That's most likely the way it went down.

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 71,613
  • Gender: Female
The producers were well aware of Robertson's views. You don't sign up an entire family to do a TV show in your network without doing due diligence on the people you're about to get into bed with, but (as it is nearly always the case with these reality based shows) you take the chance that the personality will not destroy the show before enough money has been made from it to justify the decision.

A&E was successful in containing Phil's views so long as it was able to dole out his personal brand in edited one half hour portions, but the GQ article exposed many more people that probably aren't fans of the show to Phil's views on subject of homosexuality, forcing the network to deal with his views in a much broader, less controllable universe of social media, forums and facebook.

The network was forced to protect its advertisers and corporate values.

They fired Phil.

 


Their advertisers have said the stand with the Robertson's and will go where they go. Seems their advertisers have also become friends with them and some have even hunted with them and advertise on the show because of what they stand for.  The entire country has not become hedonistic... yet...as much as you would like to think it has.

�The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.� G Washington July 2, 1776

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs

Their advertisers have said the stand with the Robertson's and will go where they go. Seems their advertisers have also become friends with them and some have even hunted with them and advertise on the show because of what they stand for.  The entire country has not become hedonistic... yet...as much as you would like to think it has.

Where have I said that I believe that the entire country has become hedonistic Rap?

Don't put words in my mouth so that you can then attack me for something that I haven't said.

I have yet to see one advertiser leave A&E in protest over Phil's firing.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 71,613
  • Gender: Female
Where have I said that I believe that the entire country has become hedonistic Rap?

Don't put words in my mouth so that you can then attack me for something that I haven't said.

I have yet to see one advertiser leave A&E in protest over Phil's firing.


No you haven't because they are saying they stand with Phil and already several channels have said they want them and when asked straight out the advertiser's said if the Robinson's walk... They walk with them.  This is being driven by GLAAD and this time they made a big mistake.  Americans are tired of watching as our country is changed to suit these minority groups. DD has 12 million viewers and A&E has a quandary... BTW the comments made by the gay storage guys was much worse than anything Phil said in his interview with a staff member from A&E sitting there the entire interview.
�The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.� G Washington July 2, 1776

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 71,613
  • Gender: Female
And the morality clause would apply much more to the storage wars guys than someone quoting from the bible.  I don't think the bible has been deemed immoral...yet.  and the support is coming from the very fed up public...
�The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.� G Washington July 2, 1776

Offline Lipstick on a Hillary

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,014

I don't think anyone disputes that A&E has the RIGHT to do what they want on their network. Of course. The First Amendment says so. What most of us are frustrated with is this idea that even questioning the legitimacy of homosexuality is a recipe for instant punishment. It is the principle behind the First Amendment-- that we can freely exercise religion and conscience as we please-- that is driving this debate, not necessarily the letter (which restricts only the federal Congress). The lobbyists who support LGBT causes have been trying to make an end-around this principle by labeling the opposing viewpoint as hate, bigotry and speech beneath the principles of free speech; to borrow from Orwell, some words are less equal than others. As Williams has illustrated, they have succeeded. Even describing the act of sodomy in objective terms-- a less-than-flattering act to be sure-- is considered vile and derogatory.


THANK YOU!  :thumbsup2:

Thank you from one poster who is tired of slogging through reams of post, scolding us dolts for being mad at A&E and lecturing us on what free speech is, when that's no more than a "duh, ya think?" over-simplification of what's really got people ticked off.


Oceander

  • Guest
And the morality clause would apply much more to the storage wars guys than someone quoting from the bible.  I don't think the bible has been deemed immoral...yet.  and the support is coming from the very fed up public...

The morals clause can be invoked, or not, at the discretion of the network; it doesn't automatically terminate the contract if it's triggered.  I'm not sure if you really grasp the concept, perhaps because of the use of the word "morals."  Think of it as a "bad boy" clause, and the network as having the sole power to decide if the performer has been a "bad boy" or not.

Oceander

  • Guest
THANK YOU!  :thumbsup2:

Thank you from one poster who is tired of slogging through reams of post, scolding us dolts for being mad at A&E and lecturing us on what free speech is, when that's no more than a "duh, ya think?" over-simplification of what's really got people ticked off.



Uhmm, unless things have changed dramatically in the last few days, the First Amendment only applies to the federal and state governments; it does not apply to private businesses such as A&E.

And as for "punishing" Mr. Robertson for speaking his mind, that is precisely what many so-called conservatives have demanded for public figures they do not like, which is precisely what Mr. Williams was pointing out.  You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.  If you think it's ok for a media outlet to fire an employee because of protests and demands by conservatives, then you are logically obliged to accept that a media outlet can fire an employee because of protests and demands by liberals.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2013, 12:54:26 pm by Oceander »

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,117
Phil Robertson does (or did anyway). He signed contracts with clauses in it that address things like this.

BTW... if I made it to the ten o'clock news saying something that my employer didn't like, while being identified as someone who worked for the company that he owns (and I work for) he has every right under the sun to fire me.

Just for a tangent, Wayne Rogers, (up right corner above Juan Williams in clip in the ski cap and sunglasses), was fired from M*A*S*H because of something to do with a morality clause.  It was shown he never signed it and he was given some sort of payment.
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Oceander

  • Guest
Just for a tangent, Wayne Rogers, (up right corner above Juan Williams in clip in the ski cap and sunglasses), was fired from M*A*S*H because of something to do with a morality clause.  It was shown he never signed it and he was given some sort of payment.

That makes perfect sense - if he didn't sign it, and there's no other evidence that he accepted it as part of his employment contract, then he wasn't bound to comply with it and therefore the company itself breached the employment agreement when it fired him.

Offline Lipstick on a Hillary

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,014
If you think it's ok for a media outlet to fire an employee because of protests and demands by conservatives, then you are logically obliged to accept that a media outlet can fire an employee because of protests and demands by liberals.

*Sigh*    Once more with feeling...  this is more than about an employer firing someone for voicing their opinion. 

People in this country are sick and tired of being told what is considered to be acceptable thought in this country, and what isn't.  This doesn't have anything to do with being fired--this is about people resent being punished as bigots.   Which is maybe why this and this have been reported in the last 24 hours alone. 




rangerrebew

  • Guest
The best way  to get rid of an annoying gnat like Juan Williams is not to get upset about the drivel he writes but to ignore it.  As long as people get up in arms about his nonsense and write about, he will be taking not only the people he annoys to the cleaners, he will be taking them to the bank.  If he gets no attention from the people who respond to columns, he has no value to the media and will eventually be gotten rid of. :odrama:

Offline WAYNE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
  • Gender: Male
Liberal Logic 101:

Call for the firing of a TV star because his Faith teaches him that homosexuality is immoral.

Invite the President of Iran, who has ordered the hanging, stoning and burning to death of 1000's of people for being homosexual, to Columbia University as a keynote speaker.

And you wonder why we think you're all idiots....





^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^AMEN^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
*Sigh*    Once more with feeling...  this is more than about an employer firing someone for voicing their opinion. 

People in this country are sick and tired of being told what is considered to be acceptable thought in this country, and what isn't.  This doesn't have anything to do with being fired--this is about people resent being punished as bigots.   Which is maybe why this and this have been reported in the last 24 hours alone.

So when Robertson decided to wax on about the unacceptable aspects of homosexuality, and how homosexuality was basically no different than bestiality, people got pissed because they don't want to be told what to think.

The point is that we've become an intolerant society that's lost the concept of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", and have chosen instead to punish people for what they say that we don't agree with. WE are the biggest violators of free speech rights. Not that we can't be, but it is damaging nevertheless.

It happened to The Dixie Chicks, it happened to Phil Robertson.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline GourmetDan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,277

A & E was quite aware of Phil Robertson's beliefs and for that fact every one of his families beliefs to act surprised at his remarks is the height of stupidity duplicity.

"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." - Ecclesiastes 10:2

"The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party." - GourmetDan

Offline GourmetDan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,277

So when Robertson decided to wax on about the unacceptable aspects of homosexuality, and how homosexuality was basically no different than bestiality, people got pissed because they don't want to be told what to think.


I don't think it was about being told what to think.

It was about being told that the truth is not relative and that their behavior is wrong...


"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." - Ecclesiastes 10:2

"The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party." - GourmetDan

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
I would wonder the same thing. After all, the same contract allows Mr. Robertson to have other shows on another network (his Duck Commander and Buck Commander shows are still running on Outdoor Channel, which is owned by conservative Christian Stan Kroenke). Most networks have exclusivity issues that prevent people from holding multiple shows on multiple networks without explicit waivers each instance. That would indicate that we have no idea what is in the agreement between the Robertsons and A&E. A&E made no mention of any such contract clause in their statement.

I don't think anyone disputes that A&E has the RIGHT to do what they want on their network. Of course. The First Amendment says so. What most of us are frustrated with is this idea that even questioning the legitimacy of homosexuality is a recipe for instant punishment. It is the principle behind the First Amendment-- that we can freely exercise religion and conscience as we please-- that is driving this debate, not necessarily the letter (which restricts only the federal Congress). The lobbyists who support LGBT causes have been trying to make an end-around this principle by labeling the opposing viewpoint as hate, bigotry and speech beneath the principles of free speech; to borrow from Orwell, some words are less equal than others. As Williams has illustrated, they have succeeded. Even describing the act of sodomy in objective terms-- a less-than-flattering act to be sure-- is considered vile and derogatory.

Robertson had no intention to be deliberately offensive or provocative with his statement; he was merely stating his personal belief on the matter in as impartial of a way as he could. Maher is deliberately offensive and provocative every time he opens his mouth; that is part of his schtick, one that has been around since Lenny Bruce-- heck, Diogenes. There is a difference between being offensive for the sake of being offensive (as Bashir was and as Maher regularly is) and being offensive because other people want to be offended.

I do find it ironic that so many of the people who wanted Robertson canned also support GENDA legislation: laws that prevent companies from firing people for dressing in drag at work.

The First Amendment says nothing of the sort. It just says that Congress can enact no laws to establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of it, or abridging the freedom of speech, the press or assembly.

Congress is not involved in this mess, so when you speak about the principle of the First Amendment, that's not correct in the content of this discussion. Robertson is free to believe as he believes, and free to say what he wants to say, but the 1st Amendment does not protect anyone from the possible consequences of the exercise of our rights.

So you are correct that we can exercise our rights to freedom of speech as we see fit, but incorrect in arguing that we are protected from the consequences of that free speech.

Hell... many of us are not allowed to post in FR because we exercised our freedom of speech and said something Robinson didn't like. He's probably over there ranting about a freedom that he's notorious for not respecting himself.

So when you are interviewed by a national publication because you are a member of a TV show that A&E owns, and you say something as a representative of that show and by extension the network, that the network disapproves of, you can and may be fired.

The fact that many people don't like the idea that expressing one's religious beliefs can get you fired may be at the root of this thing, but as an employer, I want to retain the right to do that if that employee does it while representing my company

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
I don't think it was about being told what to think.

It was about being told that the truth is not relative and that their behavior is wrong...

So when someone else tells you that what you think isn't the truth, but what he says is that's not telling you what you think?

The fact that you agree with him is whay you don't see anything wrong with what he said.

If a Muslim decided to tell you that his truth is the truth, and that you're wrong in what you hold to be truth, you'd disagree strongly.

It's a matter of perspective.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx