If you don't know I will give you a quick recap of what happened. Phil Robertson, who is the patriarch of the reality hit show Duck Dynasty and the founder of the Duck Commander company that started his fame and gave rise to the show, recently had an interview with GQ Magazine. In that interview he mostly talked about his religion and beliefs and made several homophobic and racist remarks. This ultimately resulted in A&E indefinitely suspending him from the show which is aired on their network.
And this is where the ish hits the fan, or maybe where the fans start throwing the ish. Either way, the internet has been blowing up with fans, religious fanatics, and even politicians chanting that Phil's right to free speech has been impeded upon. This caused an equally large outcry from equal rights activists stating their support for the networks decision.
I would personally like to say that I find it laughably ironic that we are arguing over the right of free speech given that the man is in trouble because he used a platform of communication to preach his ideas to the world. Maybe I should be trying to find out who is impeding upon my right to free speech since I'm still stuck communicating through a blog! All jokes aside, Phil was given an opportunity to say anything and everything he wanted and he took it. He isn't done either! Just today I heard of a new story on Eonline where he said that he "Will not give or back off." It's plain to see that no one has imprisoned him or forced him off the media for his statements, which is for what the freedom of speech was created. So Sarah Palin, maybe you want to brush up on your history and law before you go around giving speeches!
What the freedom of speech does not allow you is a get out of jail free card, meaning it can not abolish the effects of your words. For every action there is a reaction and no one can precisely predict what that will be and no one can promise that you will be safe from the effects of the reaction. When Phil decided to say what he said in GQ he knew that he was in direct opposition of A&E. He even fumed about how A&E wouldn't let him talk about his religious views on the show and went on to say that he intended to make good use of his time with GQ and say everything he couldn't on A&E. Again, this is not an infringement on his rights, this is censorship, no different than when a cuss word is bleeped out of a broadcast. Since A&E is a very progressive company and they openly support equal rights activism they could not in good conscience continue to support Phil Robertson or they would in essence be supporting his bigoted views. As one of this country's global platforms by which we are represented and which many people look to for clues on how to think, feel, and act they felt it was their civic duty to stand against bigotry and make a public statement about love, acceptance, support, and tolerance.
Which leads me to what I think is the real question, why would Phil Robertson sign on with a network that is in direct opposition of his views and beliefs?
Which leads me to what I think is the real question, why would Phil Robertson sign on with a network that is in direct opposition of his views and beliefs?
No comments:
Post a Comment