Ah, how I'm loving all of these Duck Dynasty debates, centering around star Phil Robertson's controversial interview with GQ magazine, where he made remarks which upset both the LGBT and African-American communities. He basically said that homosexuality is akin to bestiality, that gays are going to hell, and that blacks were happy being slaves. No, I'm not sure if this man's IQ is above 70 either. In any case, Duck Dynasty die-hards and hard-core evangelical conservatives have come together to stand up for Robertson's First Amendment rights! Free speech, they've been crying out time and time again! Others have said, "You see? This just goes to show you that the country is going down the tubes and the liberal media controls all!"
I hate to burst their bubble, but they're wrong. This is not a free speech matter. If it was a free speech matter, the government would have punished Phil Robertson. They'd have come after him, and depending on how tyrannical the government was, he could serve prison time or even be executed. To my knowledge, Mr. Robertson hasn't had to face such penalties. In other words, Phil Robertson exercised his right to free speech without persecution from the government. However, just because one is granted the right to free speech in a country and the government doesn't go after him for some controversial remarks, that does not mean the man's employer has to follow suit. An employer's image is largely painted by his or her employees and the work they do and the behavior they exhibit. If an employee offends a customer and word gets out about it, the employer could face some serious backlash, both from an image/reputation standpoint as well as a sales/profit standpoint. So, if this happens, there's a very good chance that the employee will at least get suspended, if not fired. He may have just been exercising his opinion, and while he has every right to do that without fearing government persecution (unless it's a death threat on a government official, especially the president), that doesn't mean he won't have to face potential repercussions from his employer.
That's exactly what happened with regard to Phil Robertson. A&E was facing some serious backlash, as they received complaints from GLAAD, the NAACP, and many others for Robertson's homophobic and racist remarks. Instead of allowing the complaints to mount, they decided to try and save face by suspending Robertson. People can agree or disagree on A&E's decision, but ultimately, it was solely a business decision, which has nothing to do with Robertson's First Amendment rights being violated.
I hate to burst their bubble, but they're wrong. This is not a free speech matter. If it was a free speech matter, the government would have punished Phil Robertson. They'd have come after him, and depending on how tyrannical the government was, he could serve prison time or even be executed. To my knowledge, Mr. Robertson hasn't had to face such penalties. In other words, Phil Robertson exercised his right to free speech without persecution from the government. However, just because one is granted the right to free speech in a country and the government doesn't go after him for some controversial remarks, that does not mean the man's employer has to follow suit. An employer's image is largely painted by his or her employees and the work they do and the behavior they exhibit. If an employee offends a customer and word gets out about it, the employer could face some serious backlash, both from an image/reputation standpoint as well as a sales/profit standpoint. So, if this happens, there's a very good chance that the employee will at least get suspended, if not fired. He may have just been exercising his opinion, and while he has every right to do that without fearing government persecution (unless it's a death threat on a government official, especially the president), that doesn't mean he won't have to face potential repercussions from his employer.
That's exactly what happened with regard to Phil Robertson. A&E was facing some serious backlash, as they received complaints from GLAAD, the NAACP, and many others for Robertson's homophobic and racist remarks. Instead of allowing the complaints to mount, they decided to try and save face by suspending Robertson. People can agree or disagree on A&E's decision, but ultimately, it was solely a business decision, which has nothing to do with Robertson's First Amendment rights being violated.
Comments
Post a Comment