Author Topic: Juan Williams: Right Wanted Bashir, Maher Fired, But ‘Cry Foul’ Over Duck Dynasty Star?  (Read 7684 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/juan-williams-right-wanted-martin-bashir-bill-maher-fired-but-cry-foul-over-duck-dynasty-star/


Juan Williams: Right Wanted Bashir, Maher Fired, But ‘Cry Foul’ Over Duck Dynasty Star?
by Evan McMurry | 10:16 am, December 22nd, 2013 VIDEO
 

On Fox News Sunday, Fox News analyst Juan Williams called the conservative outrage over last week’s suspension of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson hypocritical, given the right’s history of hounding MSNBC host Martin Bashir and others—which is notable as Williams, as he himself pointed out, is a Fox News analyst because he was fired from NPR for a remark about Muslims made in 2010.

“The right goes after Martin Bashir, they wanted Martin Bashir fired,” Williams said. “Remember Dixie Chicks, or Tim Robbins, or Bill Maher? All of that, the right says get them out of here. But then they want to cry foul when people are intolerant of them.”

“The reason that the right is so strongly backing this is because they think this is a potential wedge issue, especially with older, white, evangelical voters,” Williams said.

“When I got fired, it was part of an honest debate about terrorism in our society. My employer didn’t like it and fired me. But this is not about honest debate. What was said actually shuts down debate. It was ugly language about homosexual acts. It invites bigotry. It invites people to hate people who are gay. And this is amazing, because it is not in the Christian tradition to make judgments about them and to put them in a box.”

Watch the clip below, via Fox News:
“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: 7,502
    • Boiling Frogs
Debates like this expose the abysmal ignorance of what constitutes "freedom" in our society.

To be fair, I've been away for days and haven't read any posts on the subject in this forum, but I've read them elsewhere, and the reaction of people who up to this point in my life I considered intelligent, centered and informed is shocking.

They're all out there screaming about the violation of Phil Robertson's First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and religion.

How is that the case?

Robertson isn't in jail and that Esquire magazine is still on the shelf.

This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with anyone's First Amendment rights.

Like that stopped clock, Juan Williams is actually right in this instance. We either have freedom of speech in this country, or we don't.

Freedom of speech is not defined by the offended. We can't make the argument that what Bashir said was more offensive than what Peterson said, because no one is in the position of becoming the arbiter of what constitutes offensive speech to others. We each decide for ourselves what we consider to be offensive or not.

Freedom of speech does not protect people from all the possible consequences of the exercise of that right either.

If there are rights being violated here, is the right of A&E to act in a manner that they believe to be in the best interest of their company. Robertson more than likely is under contract with A&E, a contract that in all probability includes detailed morals clauses that prohibit him from making statements or acting in a way that insults or denigrates people, a contract that he willingly entered into, and willingly violated.

From everything that I've read about Phil Robertson, he doesn't much care what others think about him, so I am also highly amused at the third-party outrage that this situation has created.
 

 
« Last Edit: December 22, 2013, 04:32:45 PM by Luis Gonzalez »
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Cincinnatus

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,514
Perhaps: no one is in the position of becoming the arbiter of what constitutes offensive speech to others.

But everyone is in a position to state what offends themselves and to voice their disapproval, just as you seem to think everyone has a right to say whatever they wish with no consequences.
We shall never be abandoned by Heaven while we act worthy of its aid ~~ Samuel Adams

Offline Lipstick on a Hillary

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,027
Juan Williams is laughing all the say to the bank.  He's a black man, and can say any stupid thing he wants with little repercussions, and he's getting paid for it.

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
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....
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Online truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,434
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
Rather, Williams and Bashir fired. Hardly supports the contention that liberals get away with what conservatives do not get away with.

I sort of like letting the Free Speech just run its course, and see who prevails, in the public marketplace of ideas.

By the viewership of Fox, it looks like conservatives win.  I never watched DD, nor do I watch that type of programming at all. But learned about others I know that loved the show. 

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,502
    • Boiling Frogs
Perhaps: no one is in the position of becoming the arbiter of what constitutes offensive speech to others.

But everyone is in a position to state what offends themselves and to voice their disapproval, just as you seem to think everyone has a right to say whatever they wish with no consequences.

That is the EXACT opposite of what I posted.

From my post:

Freedom of speech does not protect people from all the possible consequences of the exercise of that right either.

I was pretty sure I wrote that in English.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2013, 07:27:32 PM by Luis Gonzalez »
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline raml

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,303
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. They are the ones who stupidly said they had taken him out of the show for his remarks and we the consumers have the right to boycott the station for their stupidity.  A&E will suffer the consequences of their actions. I never really reacted to the free speech thing because I knew that wasn't really correct here in this instance.  The company should  have a clause in their contract if they wish to take him out of the show and maybe they do but a Christian and the Robertson's are that wouldn't sign away their right to talk about their beliefs in public that wouldn't even be something they could do unless tricked into it. I do believe A&E walked into this mess by underestimating how many people actually believe in the right of freedom of religion and the right to speak about that. I never had a job where outside of work I couldn't talk about my religion for fear of being fired and no one should be able to have that happen. He didn't bash one person and name them like Bashir. I would never listen to Bill Mayer or care what he says about anyone we all  know is a total kook.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2013, 06:21:55 PM by raml »

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,502
    • Boiling Frogs
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....

Actually, speaking of homosexuality in the same breath as bestiality and seemingly painting a line of equivalency between the two is what got people in an uproar.

Columbia sucks for doing that, but they have the right to do it, and will probably face a backlash as a result of it as people exercise their right to speak out against the school.

That's just freedom.

“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,502
    • Boiling Frogs
Juan Williams is laughing all the say to the bank.  He's a black man, and can say any stupid thing he wants with little repercussions, and he's getting paid for it.


Not really.

“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,502
    • Boiling Frogs
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. They are the ones who stupidly said they had taken him out of the show for his remarks and we the consumers have the right to boycott the station for their stupidity.  A&E will suffer the consequences of their actions. I never really reacted to the free speech thing because I knew that wasn't really correct here in this instance.  The company should  have a clause in their contract if they wish to take him out of the show and maybe they do but a Christian and the Robertson's are that wouldn't sign away their right to talk about their beliefs in public that wouldn't even be something they could do unless tricked into it. I do believe A&E walked into this mess by underestimating how many people actually believe in the right of freedom of religion and the right to speak about that. I never had a job where outside of work I couldn't talk about my religion for fear of being fired and no one should be able to have that happen. He didn't bash one person and name them like Bashir. I would never listen to Bill Mayer or care what he says about anyone we all  know is a total kook.

Phil Robertson willingly signed a contract that included behavior clauses and he willingly violated that contract.

I myself thought that it was stupid to draw that line of equivalency between homosexuality and bestiality that way that he seemed to do, and I thought that there were two possibilities why he did it:

  • Not aware that his comments would cause an uproar
  • Not caring about the possible uproar that his comments may cause

Personally, I'd put my money on #2.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2013, 07:54:01 PM by Luis Gonzalez »
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,502
    • Boiling Frogs
I never had a job where outside of work I couldn't talk about my religion for fear of being fired and no one should be able to have that happen.

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.
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 43,485
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Quote
“When I got fired, it was part of an honest debate about terrorism in our society. My employer didn’t like it and fired me. But this is not about honest debate. What was said actually shuts down debate. It was ugly language about homosexual acts. It invites bigotry. It invites people to hate people who are gay. And this is amazing, because it is not in the Christian tradition to make judgments about them and to put them in a box.”

All of that is utterly irrelevant.  It doesn't matter one whit that Williams thinks that his firing was part of an "honest debate about terrorism" because an employer can - or should be able to - fire any employee at any time for any reason - or no reason - whatsoever.  The same applies to Phil Robertson and A&E - A&E should be free to hire and fire employees, subject only to abiding in good faith by the terms of the employment agreement it has with an employee.

Furthermore, members of the general public are free to either demand that a particular public persona be fired, or to protest when a favored public persona is fired.  As such, there really isn't any real inconsistency if the right demands that Bashir or Maher be fired and then protests when Phil Robertson is fired - that's their prerogative.

The only real inconsistency, if we want to call it that, is, in fact, on the part of the left, which falls all over itself to demand utter tolerance for bigotted hatred from everyone and anyone other than, generally speaking, whites, men and christians.  That they are willing to defend to the teeth the bigotted hatred of muslim imams but not the allegedly bigotted hatred from a white male christian (I'm willing to assume Robertson's statements were bigotted hatred for the purposes of this discussion).

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,502
    • Boiling Frogs
All of that is utterly irrelevant.  It doesn't matter one whit that Williams thinks that his firing was part of an "honest debate about terrorism" because an employer can - or should be able to - fire any employee at any time for any reason - or no reason - whatsoever.  The same applies to Phil Robertson and A&E - A&E should be free to hire and fire employees, subject only to abiding in good faith by the terms of the employment agreement it has with an employee.

Furthermore, members of the general public are free to either demand that a particular public persona be fired, or to protest when a favored public persona is fired.  As such, there really isn't any real inconsistency if the right demands that Bashir or Maher be fired and then protests when Phil Robertson is fired - that's their prerogative.

The only real inconsistency, if we want to call it that, is, in fact, on the part of the left, which falls all over itself to demand utter tolerance for bigotted hatred from everyone and anyone other than, generally speaking, whites, men and christians.  That they are willing to defend to the teeth the bigotted hatred of muslim imams but not the allegedly bigotted hatred from a white male christian (I'm willing to assume Robertson's statements were bigotted hatred for the purposes of this discussion).

That pretty much sums it up.

Robertson's statements (like Bashir's statements) were only bigoted to those who took offense to them.
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Lando Lincoln

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,585
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.

Exactly.  This is not a First Amendment issue - he has every right to say what he wants to say.  But in this case, he had better be prepared to pay the consequences.  A&E has every right to protect its brand - hence the contract and hence the suspension.

The Robertsons have tactical moves but they are only to bring pressure on A&E.  Considerable, to be sure, but A&E has the right to do what they did.
For the progressive, there is very little to love about the United States. Washington, Jefferson, Madison? A bunch of rotten slaveholders, hypocrites, and cowards even when their hearts were in the right places. The Declaration of Independence? A manifesto for the propertied classes. The Constitution? An artifact of sexism and white supremacy. The sacrifices in the great wars of the 20th century? Feeding the poor and the disenfranchised into the meat-grinder of imperialism. The gifts of Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Astor? Blood money from self-aggrandizing robber barons. Nat Rev

Offline raml

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,303
So you have seen this so called contract that forbids him from talking about his beliefs? I hadn't seen any copy of it floating around? He was being interviewed when asked a question and this is forbidden in his contract to be answered? I haven't seen this so called contract have you people who claim he signed one with that clause. No way would a Christian sign his right away to speak in public about his faith. This is what we are asked to do as a Christian no matter who we work for the only time I wouldn't is during my work hours unless talking to personal friends who hold my beliefs. It is A&E that will suffer not Phil Robertson he is just living his life the way it should be lived.

Offline Lando Lincoln

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,585
Robertson had a right to say what he did based on the First Amendment. A&E had the right to suspend him based on their contract with Robertson.
For the progressive, there is very little to love about the United States. Washington, Jefferson, Madison? A bunch of rotten slaveholders, hypocrites, and cowards even when their hearts were in the right places. The Declaration of Independence? A manifesto for the propertied classes. The Constitution? An artifact of sexism and white supremacy. The sacrifices in the great wars of the 20th century? Feeding the poor and the disenfranchised into the meat-grinder of imperialism. The gifts of Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Astor? Blood money from self-aggrandizing robber barons. Nat Rev

Offline Lando Lincoln

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,585
Consumers have a right to boycott A&E. The Robertson Family has the right to walk out on the show.
For the progressive, there is very little to love about the United States. Washington, Jefferson, Madison? A bunch of rotten slaveholders, hypocrites, and cowards even when their hearts were in the right places. The Declaration of Independence? A manifesto for the propertied classes. The Constitution? An artifact of sexism and white supremacy. The sacrifices in the great wars of the 20th century? Feeding the poor and the disenfranchised into the meat-grinder of imperialism. The gifts of Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Astor? Blood money from self-aggrandizing robber barons. Nat Rev

Offline Lando Lincoln

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,585
It will boil down to business consideration.
For the progressive, there is very little to love about the United States. Washington, Jefferson, Madison? A bunch of rotten slaveholders, hypocrites, and cowards even when their hearts were in the right places. The Declaration of Independence? A manifesto for the propertied classes. The Constitution? An artifact of sexism and white supremacy. The sacrifices in the great wars of the 20th century? Feeding the poor and the disenfranchised into the meat-grinder of imperialism. The gifts of Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Astor? Blood money from self-aggrandizing robber barons. Nat Rev

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,933
  • ^^ Actual picture of me.
    • Fullervision
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.
STILL a proud supporter of the Free Conservative Resistance (no affiliation with the left-wing "Resistance")

"Just because people in positions of authority are stupid, it doesn’t mean you have to go along with it." —Arlo Guthrie

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 43,485
  • #NeverTrumpForever
So you have seen this so called contract that forbids him from talking about his beliefs? I hadn't seen any copy of it floating around? He was being interviewed when asked a question and this is forbidden in his contract to be answered? I haven't seen this so called contract have you people who claim he signed one with that clause. No way would a Christian sign his right away to speak in public about his faith. This is what we are asked to do as a Christian no matter who we work for the only time I wouldn't is during my work hours unless talking to personal friends who hold my beliefs. It is A&E that will suffer not Phil Robertson he is just living his life the way it should be lived.


Robertson's contract with A&E almost certainly contains what is called a "morals clause" - these have become standard in contracts with performers and sports figures - and so while we cannot say with 100% that this gave A&E the right to fire him, it's a very safe bet that this is the case.  There's a blog post on precisely this issue here:  http://ipandentertainmentlaw.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/duck-dynasty-what-contract-clause-did-phil-violate-the-morals-clause/

That post contains a typical morals clause that can be found in many such contracts:
Quote
If the Network or Producer becomes aware that Artist has previously committed any such acts or has engaged in behavior that the Network or Producer reasonably determines brings or may bring Artist, Producer, the Network or the Network’s sponsors into widespread public disrepute, scandal or ridicule or which reflects or may reflect unfavorably upon Artist, Producer, the Network or a sponsor, then Producer shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement forthwith by giving Artist notice of termination in writing at any time after the Network or Producer acquires knowledge of such act or conduct.


There's a more general discussion of morals clauses here:  http://fkks.com/article.asp?articleID=178

Here are a few tidbits from that article:
Quote
*  *  *

Morals clauses are one of the most controversial and heavily negotiated provisions in athlete endorsement contracts. Such clauses often give the advertiser the ability to suspend or terminate the agreement in the event that the athlete commits an act that falls within the purview of the clause – usually defined as behavior that is criminal, scandalous, or otherwise publicly reprehensible. See Nader v. ABC Television, Inc., 150 Fed. Appx. 54, 56 (2d Cir. 2005) affirming 330 F. Supp. 2d 345 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (in upholding right to terminate actor for breach of morals clause due to criminal activity, the Second Circuit found that "morals clauses have long been held valid and enforceable"). Because the advertiser is paying for the use of the athlete's good name and image, the advertiser may want to end a relationship with an athlete whose misdeeds have tarnished that name and image.

*  *  *

If an advertiser is concerned with a particular athlete endorser, then the advertiser will often push for a broad morals clause that provides sufficient discretion to the advertiser to determine whether the endorsing athlete's acts constitute a violation. Such a clause might include the following language:  "If at any time, in the opinion of Sponsor, Athlete becomes the subject of public disrepute, contempt, or scandal that affects Athlete's image or goodwill, then Company may, upon written notice to Athlete, immediately suspend or terminate this Endorsement Agreement and Athlete's services hereunder, in addition to any other rights and remedies that Sponsor may have hereunder or at law or in equity."


In this instance Robertson's contract most likely had a very broad morals clause that covered anything that was highly controversial, and his comments would certainly fit into that bailiwick.

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,675
  • Congrats Donald Trump! 45th POTUS!
What's interesting is that Robertson's inflammatory statement, his indefinite suspension, and the firestorm of publicity that resulted ended up boosting the value of A&E's property.

Funny how negative publicity can in many cases paradoxically goose one side or the other of a controversial event.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2013, 11:10:41 PM by aligncare »
Some #NeverTrumpers are like the pockets of Japanese who didn't know the war was over

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,502
    • Boiling Frogs
So you have seen this so called contract that forbids him from talking about his beliefs? I hadn't seen any copy of it floating around? He was being interviewed when asked a question and this is forbidden in his contract to be answered? I haven't seen this so called contract have you people who claim he signed one with that clause. No way would a Christian sign his right away to speak in public about his faith. This is what we are asked to do as a Christian no matter who we work for the only time I wouldn't is during my work hours unless talking to personal friends who hold my beliefs. It is A&E that will suffer not Phil Robertson he is just living his life the way it should be lived.

Of course I haven't seen that contract. I don't need to actually see things to believe that they exist.

But, let's go ahead and pretend-live in that world where "morals" clauses haven't been standard in entertainment contracts since the Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle case and believe instead that Phil Robertson, an unknown backwoods duck call manufacturer, managed to get a TV show without such a clause in the contract.

Let's pretend that "morals clauses" are not still -prevalent in marketing, television and sports contracts, and that Kate Moss, Michael Nader and Tiger Woods were not fired for violations of the "morals clause" in their contract.

Let's pretend that CG decision to interview Phil Robertson had NOTHING to do with the fact that Phil has a show on A&E, and that the January 2014 cover of GQ doesn't say "Shooting the Sh*t With the Dudes From "Duck Dynasty", a show that belongs to A&E, so they just wanted to interview some random backwoods Louisiana country boy and Phil was available .

Let's pretend all that, and instead believe that that clause doesn't exist, then let's try to figure out why Robertson's attorneys haven't sued A&E for wrongful dismissal and breach of contract.

Because the clause exists, and because the Courts held up such clauses as valid.
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 43,485
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Of course I haven't seen that contract. I don't need to actually see things to believe that they exist.

But, let's go ahead and pretend-live in that world where "morals" clauses haven't been standard in entertainment contracts since the Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle case and believe instead that Phil Robertson, an unknown backwoods duck call manufacturer, managed to get a TV show without such a clause in the contract.

Let's pretend that "morals clauses" are not still -prevalent in marketing, television and sports contracts, and that Kate Moss, Michael Nader and Tiger Woods were not fired for violations of the "morals clause" in their contract.

Let's pretend that CG decision to interview Phil Robertson had NOTHING to do with the fact that Phil has a show on A&E, and that the January 2014 cover of GQ doesn't say "Shooting the Sh*t With the Dudes From "Duck Dynasty", a show that belongs to A&E, so they just wanted to interview some random backwoods Louisiana country boy and Phil was available .

Let's pretend all that, and instead believe that that clause doesn't exist, then let's try to figure out why Robertson's attorneys haven't sued A&E for wrongful dismissal and breach of contract.

Because the clause exists, and because the Courts held up such clauses as valid.



I wouldn't write off the possibility of a lawsuit completely.  For example, in the wake of 9/11, a footballer named Rashard Mendenhall tweeted various comments both casting doubt on whether the buildings came down solely because of the planes and about how he found it odd that people could hate Osama without knowing him.  One of his sponsors, Hanesbrand, terminated their sponsorship agreement with him because of those tweets.  He sued and subsequently settled with Hanesbrand because the judge in the case denied Hanesbrand's motion to dismiss because he found that Hanesbrand had an implied covenant of good faith to not exercise its discretion to terminate Mendenhall under the morals clause for his tweets.  The fact that they settled means that Mendenhall had a potentially viable claim.  There's a discussion of the matter here:  http://sportinlaw.com/2013/01/22/athletes-morality-clauses-and-social-media/

It's possible - although I'm not making any odds here - that Robertson might have a similar claim regarding A&E's termination of him if, in fact, they terminated him under a morals clause similar to the one under which Mendenhall was terminated.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,502
    • Boiling Frogs
I wouldn't write off the possibility of a lawsuit completely.  For example, in the wake of 9/11, a footballer named Rashard Mendenhall tweeted various comments both casting doubt on whether the buildings came down solely because of the planes and about how he found it odd that people could hate Osama without knowing him.  One of his sponsors, Hanesbrand, terminated their sponsorship agreement with him because of those tweets.  He sued and subsequently settled with Hanesbrand because the judge in the case denied Hanesbrand's motion to dismiss because he found that Hanesbrand had an implied covenant of good faith to not exercise its discretion to terminate Mendenhall under the morals clause for his tweets.  The fact that they settled means that Mendenhall had a potentially viable claim.  There's a discussion of the matter here:  http://sportinlaw.com/2013/01/22/athletes-morality-clauses-and-social-media/

It's possible - although I'm not making any odds here - that Robertson might have a similar claim regarding A&E's termination of him if, in fact, they terminated him under a morals clause similar to the one under which Mendenhall was terminated.


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:

Quote
"They (homosexuals) committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."


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

“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf