Duck Dynasty Might Be Over

My posts were logical, well thought out points.

 

If you believe its nothing, Then you sure as shit don't stand for anything worthwhile and what you might, Would be pretty fucked up.

You are lucky, I had to watch them a couple times and getting drunk and trashing a hotel room and throwing stuff off the roof was what the company wanted and kept fueling the fire to keep it up.

 

actually, you're wrong.

I'm not terribly pleased, but the point I was making that the media in the US is held only by a very few hands is even truer than I feared.

Say "BS" all that you want. There is rather severe censorship in the US, and in particular, in the US media and educational institutions. While there may be a plethora of voices to be heard, only some of those voices are represented in the media.

In principle, you could hear a wide variety of opinions even if there were only one media corporation. However, any semblance of journalistic ethics or objectivity has gone straight down the shiter in the US. Media corporations use their influence to push their own agenda and interests.

No. Perhaps they could make slightly more money in the short term if they catered to a wider variety of people. The transformation that we have seen in the media (particularly in the last 25 years) has been a fulfillment of Antonio Gramsci's vision expressed in "Pedagogy of the Oppressed"

(from wikipedia)

Though it is clear that the new cultural hegemons are not anti-capitalist, but rather a coalition of feminist, gay, and minority bourgeois acting in their own self interest.

Fox news is probably more pro republican than any other broadcast network news show, largely due to the influence of Roger Ailes
(from wikipedia)

The rest of what Fox presents may not be so pro-republican, because Roger Ailes is only president of Fox News.

Do you really believe that people would benefit from watching more television? It's like asking me to eat a shit sandwich.

 

Yogi, I've already pointed out quite clearly that free speech pertains to no government censorship, not protection from your boss for saying offensive things to customers. That has never been part of free speech anywhere, if you suspect otherwise you'll have to present evidence of such.

Most tv and radio contracts have provisions for ethical breeches of behavior which would damage the reputation of the station. I don't know what he signed, maybe this Phil guy is pretty savvy. I doubt it.

 

Certainly, there is not enough room for every possible opinion to be expressed in mass media. However, a&e rather eagerly embraced what he had to say, until he expressed opinions that they didn't like. Or in other words, they censored him.

If a media personality in the 1950's, for example, said "I'm for gay rights" publicly, they almost certainly would have been fired (if not also harrassed, threatened, attacked, etc.). It seems to me that the same sort of defenses that you give for a&e now would apply equally well then:

"Well, it's the right of the broadcast company to fire him, because it's a private company. They just couldn't allow their good name to be associated with such immoral, deviant activities".

Or, "Well, we can't allow every extremist, deviant view to be provided with a platform!".

Was it censorship when no one could publicly declare themselves to be gay or for gay rights (or at least not declare it without being fired, attacked, or otherwise suffering retaliation)? You bet your ass it was.

Certainly not all opinions can be expressed in the media at once, but when the opinions of millions of people can not be expressed without fear of retaliation, that is indeed censorship.

So instead of having the conservative christians exercising their cultural hegemony over millions of gay people, we have gay people exercising their cultural hegemony over millions of conservative christians.

It seems to me that very few people actually believe in any kind of principle of free speech, or even of fairness. Free speech is either championed or attacked depending on whether or not one feels one's own agenda is being advanced.

 

yep

 

What I said above about the censorship of gay rights in the 1950's (though by no means was it limited to the 1950's) applies here.

Whether or not it infringes on constitutional free speech rights is a matter of debate. I don't think that the kind of concentrated control of speech in the press and the media is what the framers of the constitution intended. The SCOTUS might allow this type of censorship, but then have also allowed unlimited political advertising. Something of a perversion of genuine free speech when some people have more of a free speech right than others, imho.

I am abundantly aware of censorship here at Hip Forums.

I think that people should be free to express ideas to other people who want to hear those ideas. Things that are commercial or criminal activities that do not purely express an idea, or which are not directed to a receptive audience (spam, porn, and personal attacks) might reasonably be excluded. I'm not sure what you mean by proselytizing rants, but unless the rant is advertising a particular organization, perhaps they should be permitted.

Censorship here at HF is not always so high minded. Unpopular ideas all too often get censored, largely because the mods have pretty broad discretion in what they do. My experience has been that only ideas that criticize political correctness get censored here.

 

hey, welcome back! :sunny:

 

thanks sweetie

 

Jesus christ! It's a fucking contract! What is so complicated about this? It has nothing to do with censorship whatsoever.

I own a business that works in the utility industry. Our biggest customer supplies a lot of power to commercial Ag operations...which is something that I personally don't support. I have a right to spew my opinion to customers all day long (free speech) during work hours. I also have a right to say the same things to the same people off work hours (again...free speech...assuming they would listen to me in either case.) The power company has a right to say that our actions are unacceptable to their business model and the stance they want to have in the market. Then they can get rid of us. It's not that complicated. It's not censorship. I can continue to freely say anything I want for as long as I want.

What if you worked at Arby's and every time a customer paid you said "Fuck you and have a nice day!" What if you just did it from the road on your own time? Then you get fired. Is that censorship? Do they have a right to not allow you to tell customers to fuck off? The censorship argument boils down to the same thing. You can say whatever you want...you don't have to work here.

 

I doubt it. Can you give any examples where someone has tactfully criticized gay rights in the main stream media and not been drummed out of it?

Here's an example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOa_9ftwlbM"]Miss USA California Responds To Gay Marriage Question From Perez Hilton - YouTube

I don't think it was a mistake that she was stripped of the miss america title, I think it was direct retaliation for her opposition to gay marriage, which she only offered because she was asked the question point blank.

 

Most of the entire republican party?

 

There have been politicians that have been allowed to publicly criticize gay marriage, though most of them end up losing. And Romney doesn't really count as an anti-gay rights republican. Everyone knew that he was just faking opposition to gay marriage to win the republican primary. He certainly didn't do much to oppose gay marriage while he was governor of massachusetts.

There aren't any pop culture figures that haven't been drummed out to my knowledge.

 

Chuck Norris.

 

Is that directed towards me?

 

An employer had an expectation of a code of behaviour that was acceptable and an employee breeched that. The employer terminated their employment contract and now that ex-employee is able to spew what they wish.

Seems to have worked out just fine.

 

I'm not aware of any anti-gay comments from Chuck, though I know that he's a chrisitian conservative [edit: I just looked up chuck; seems he said he was against BSA having gay scouts]. Chuck hasn't really been in the limelight much, unless you want to count B movies, internet memes, and "Walker, Texas Ranger".

Similar sentiments have been expressed in this thread. This is my reply http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7879616&postcount=225

 

They are not able to censor him or restrict his freedom of speech but they have the right to make it clear that they are not associated with his views and sentiments. To censor would mean they have tried to stop him, instead they voided the contract which he put in jeopardy by vocalizing something that was not in line with the company standard or public image that he worked for. Business.

In this case it is public but it happens all the time in all business. You bite the hand that feeds you and it tends to pull back the feedbag.

He is still able to say what he wishes but they have chosen to disassociate themselves from that. It is not restricting him and it is not punitive. He made the choice to say what he did for whatever reason and with that came a risk. They have every right to terminate his contract.

If he feels that he is wronged he has every right to try to sue for unjust dismissal.

He may end up making more off of his statements with appearances and deals than he would have under contract. For him the best part may be he can continue to spew what he wishes.

 

^ I really think I addressed this in this post
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7879616&postcount=225

if there is a flaw in my reasoning, I'm open to hearing it.