Skip to main content

To employers, free speech is not so free...

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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...