The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Arts & Entertainment => Topic started by: rooster on December 19, 2013, 11:28:20 PM

Title: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: rooster on December 19, 2013, 11:28:20 PM
My Facebook is blowing up about some guy on Duck Dynasty getting booted from the show because he said in an interview that he thinks homosexuality is a sin. A&E doesn't agree with his opinions and chose to kick him off the show.

Most people seem to be upset over this decision. SOMEHOW, people think that this is taking away his Freedom of Speech. When in reality, it's a private company that doesn't want to be represented by a homophobic man. I don't understand how people are muddling this issue.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Sean on December 19, 2013, 11:32:57 PM
Yes, its has nothing to do with freedom of speech, and people are dumb. I first heard of this story from CR90s Facebook, heh.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Lemon on December 19, 2013, 11:40:13 PM
It ain't like it's the government kicking him out of the country.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Blanko on December 19, 2013, 11:42:12 PM
If you're a Christian and don't think homosexuality is a sin, you're doing it wrong.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: DuckDodgers on December 20, 2013, 12:02:37 AM
He actually threw homosexuality into the same pile as bestiality, as well as sleeping around.  I doubt A&E would be so na├»ve to not think this super conservative-Christian 67 year old from Louisiana would not have a problem with homosexuality.  His comment was pretty crass.  That said, the people talking about his freedom of speech are idiots, and Mick Huckabee is right in the thick of this bawwing.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: rooster on December 20, 2013, 12:25:00 AM
If you're a Christian and don't think homosexuality is a sin, you're doing it wrong.

Not necessarily.

Anyway, people don't watch Duck Dynasty for the religious commentary, they watch it for the...uh...
I honestly couldn't say either as I've never seen a single episode.

To be charmed by southern gentlemen?
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: DuckDodgers on December 20, 2013, 12:43:54 AM
They are good God fearing folk who are going to save the morality of America by praying at dinner.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Tintagel on December 20, 2013, 01:09:06 AM
Never saw the show, no interest in reality television, hunting, or redneck antics.  Not at all surprised that he believes homosexuality is a sin, because well, his face is on every aisle in Wal-Mart, so one can conclude he's not known for his intellectual superiority.  Honestly not surprised to hear the bestiality comparison either, it's pretty common among the fundamental religious folks.  The fact that he was reprimanded to this extent is surprising, but in a good way.   

And the "freedom of speech" clowns are idiots.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Alchemist21 on December 20, 2013, 01:50:36 AM
The article I read quoted him as basically putting homosexuality as the definition of sin, and every other sin branches out from that.

Here's the link:  http://news.yahoo.com/patriarch-off-39-duck-dynasty-39-gay-comments-013907278.html

I've seen Duck Dynasty once because my mom got into it and wanted us to see.  All I saw was basically normal southern redneck life, only with more idiocy.  They actually tried to vacuum bees out of a hive trying to get raw honey on a whim.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Fortuna on December 20, 2013, 02:01:50 AM
The only thing pathetic here is A&E labeling themselves as "champions of the LGBT community" when it is purely for profit. Meanwhile, a man who is expressing what seem to be his honest opinions, gets shafted. This is why Liberals are complete idiots.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Sean on December 20, 2013, 02:54:54 AM
The only thing pathetic here is A&E labeling themselves as "champions of the LGBT community" when it is purely for profit. Meanwhile, a man who is expressing what seem to be his honest opinions, gets shafted. This is why Liberals are complete idiots.

This post makes absolutely no sense. A&E will do what is best to protect their business and retain viewers. Because they are a business. They will portray themselves in what they believe will be the most positive light to their viewers. Therefor liberals are idiots? What?

Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Snupes on December 20, 2013, 03:08:00 AM
I am not even sure what this show is about. Whenever I ask anyone who's seen it they've never really been able to explain it. I'm almost curious to watch an episode or two 'cause of that, but I'm mostly just baffled as to how it's managed to be so popular that it's plastered everywhere and has popular merchandise.

That said, I don't really see how this is much of an issue. As said, anyone who claims this guy's freedom of speech is being withheld or he's being oppressed or something is pretty dumb for all the reasons stated prior already. I mean, pretty much anyone who speaks out against homosexuality so crassly in the media who isn't on a hugely right-wing network (FOX or, more notably, FOX) is probably going to get themselves in a bucketload of trouble. I mean, hell, when even sports teams, the most overly-macho of masculinity squared, will fine or fire players for doing such things...

If you're a Christian and don't think homosexuality is a sin, you're doing it wrong.

Well, I don't think "Christian" necessarily has to do with the Bible so much as following Christ and his teachings. That's why so many use the "I only follow the New Testament" excuse. That said, if they claim to follow the New Testament, it does say the Old laws still apply, but...my point is that I think many use it as a term to pretty much describe following solely what Christ himself promoted. And as he himself never said anything about gay marriage, it's kinda moot.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Fortuna on December 20, 2013, 03:16:08 AM
The only thing pathetic here is A&E labeling themselves as "champions of the LGBT community" when it is purely for profit. Meanwhile, a man who is expressing what seem to be his honest opinions, gets shafted. This is why Liberals are complete idiots.

This post makes absolutely no sense. A&E will do what is best to protect their business and retain viewers. Because they are a business. They will portray themselves in what they believe will be the most positive light to their viewers. Therefor liberals are idiots? What?

Liberals are idiots because they are just the conservative counterpart. They harbor just as much hate and discrimination. The difference is that their opinions have more validation in society.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Sean on December 20, 2013, 03:30:21 AM
??? I don't even know what you're trying to say.

Conservatives are mad because a business made a decision that would reflect positively on its viewers.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: DuckDodgers on December 20, 2013, 03:41:39 AM
Conservatives are mad that religion is being "stifled" by A&E for suspending him indefinitely for his crass comments.  Though they are spinning it that he is suspended for disagreeing with homosexuality in general.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: DuckDodgers on December 20, 2013, 04:39:17 AM
I've been reading some of the comments left on articles talking about this and I just have to say, holy shit. This might be the event that fractures America in two.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 20, 2013, 05:11:53 AM
I've been reading some of the comments left on articles talking about this and I just have to say, holy shit. This might be the event that fractures America in two.

Nah, this is nothing new.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: bj1234 on December 20, 2013, 05:26:30 AM
Nothing different than the Chick-Fil-A "controversy" from a few years ago.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Rushy on December 20, 2013, 06:14:58 AM
People complaining that a reality show has too much reality in it.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Roundy on December 20, 2013, 06:21:23 AM
This is just like what happened with Paula Dean.  OMG old southern white people are racist and intolerant.  ::)
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Crudblud on December 20, 2013, 06:28:14 AM
Can I just ask why anyone would take a show called "Duck Dynasty" seriously?
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Roundy on December 20, 2013, 06:33:05 AM
Can I just ask why anyone would take a show called "Duck Dynasty" seriously?

I'm not sure anyone actually does.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Snupes on December 20, 2013, 06:33:47 AM
Can I just ask why anyone would take a show called "Duck Dynasty" seriously?

They got their vowels mixed up in the first word and thought it was just a different name for Game of Thrones.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on December 20, 2013, 08:52:35 AM
Old Southern white Christian guy doesn't like teh gay. Film at 11.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: spank86 on December 20, 2013, 12:11:58 PM
Can I just ask why anyone would take a show called "Duck Dynasty" seriously?

I was very disappointed to find out it was nothing like Ducktales.

What gets me is these television companies first air the comments, then try to pretend it's not all their fault that people heard something offensive.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: rooster on December 20, 2013, 12:19:36 PM
Can I just ask why anyone would take a show called "Duck Dynasty" seriously?

I was very disappointed to find out it was nothing like Ducktales.

What gets me is these television companies first air the comments, then try to pretend it's not all their fault that people heard something offensive.
What? The comments were made in GQ magazine...
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: spank86 on December 20, 2013, 12:27:32 PM
Can I just ask why anyone would take a show called "Duck Dynasty" seriously?

I was very disappointed to find out it was nothing like Ducktales.

What gets me is these television companies first air the comments, then try to pretend it's not all their fault that people heard something offensive.
What? The comments were made in GQ magazine...

then it's GQ's fault.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Lord Dave on December 20, 2013, 12:59:33 PM
Meh.
A silly thing for him to say, honestly.  When you're in the spotlight of the public eye, you no longer have freedom of speech.  I'm shocked that this wasn't explained to him when the show was first created.  Or maybe it was and he just slipped.

In any case, what he said was foolish and may have just killed his career on television.

Every man has the freedom to speak his mind.  They are not, however, immune to the consequences of what they say.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on December 20, 2013, 01:23:34 PM
Quote
you no longer have freedom of speech

yes you do. You just don't have the freedom to have an international platform to speak from.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Lord Dave on December 20, 2013, 01:29:36 PM
Quote
you no longer have freedom of speech

yes you do. You just don't have the freedom to have an international platform to speak from.
But freedom of speech means that you can say what you want (within reason) without consequence.  Telling a bank teller that you're robbing them isn't covered but saying you like bank robbers is.

When you get onto the national stage, your opinions have real and very sharp consequences.  If Justin Beiber went on stage and said "I hate Christians", his career would likely be over instantly.  Not because he did something illegal, but because his freedom to express his opinions is now weighed against the nation's opinion.  It's not much different than being in a strict Muslim country and talking about women's rights.  Or protesting gun violence at an NRA meeting.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Rama Set on December 20, 2013, 02:41:08 PM
Their Freedom of Speech is the same as ever, just now there are larger consequences for being "offensive".  Your analogy about speaking on women's rights in a strict Muslim country is not very apt though.  Dissent is most definitely allowed in the USA.  Yes it may ruin your career, but it will not visit punishment by the government.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: rooster on December 20, 2013, 06:07:46 PM
But freedom of speech means that you can say what you want (within reason) without consequence.

No, it doesn't. There are always consequences.
LD, your definition of Freedom of Speech is really weird and just.. wrong. It was never about saying what you want without consequences, ever. You are legally allowed to voice your opinions but there will always be consequences to that. You can't just call your boss an asshole and not expect to get fired.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Blanko on December 20, 2013, 06:11:52 PM
Freedom of consequence
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Sean on December 20, 2013, 06:20:59 PM
And that freedom will never be the same.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Lord Dave on December 20, 2013, 07:04:22 PM
Then how do you define freedom of speech?  If the government put people in jail for voicing anti-american opinions, that's just a consequence right?
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Rama Set on December 20, 2013, 07:11:41 PM
Well there are laws against hate speech. Usually the consequences to Free Speech are judged fairly nebulously along the lines of "does the speech impinge unnecessarily on another's rights and is the consequence appropriate to the free speech."
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: DuckDodgers on December 20, 2013, 07:12:16 PM
Freedom of speech means without consequences from the government, not from public opinion. 
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Lord Dave on December 20, 2013, 08:54:30 PM
Freedom of speech means without consequences from the government, not from public opinion.
How can it be free if it's only free from one entity, especially when the elected officials are there based on public opinion?
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: DuckDodgers on December 20, 2013, 09:25:38 PM
How can the government protect someone from public opinion based on their own statements?  That's an idiotic idea.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Rama Set on December 20, 2013, 09:33:19 PM
Freedom of speech means without consequences from the government, not from public opinion.
How can it be free if it's only free from one entity, especially when the elected officials are there based on public opinion?

It's a freedom of expression only.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Lord Dave on December 20, 2013, 09:59:25 PM
How can the government protect someone from public opinion based on their own statements?  That's an idiotic idea.
Exactly.

Freedom of speech means without consequences from the government, not from public opinion.
How can it be free if it's only free from one entity, especially when the elected officials are there based on public opinion?

It's a freedom of expression only.
The first amendment clearly says speech.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: DuckDodgers on December 20, 2013, 10:06:12 PM
Are you trying to make the point that the backlash he is receiving is also freedom of speech?
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: rooster on December 20, 2013, 10:32:14 PM
LD, I have no idea what you're saying or where you're going with it.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Rama Set on December 20, 2013, 10:46:38 PM
How can the government protect someone from public opinion based on their own statements?  That's an idiotic idea.
Exactly.

Freedom of speech means without consequences from the government, not from public opinion.
How can it be free if it's only free from one entity, especially when the elected officials are there based on public opinion?

It's a freedom of expression only.
The first amendment clearly says speech.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


Nothing you have cited prevents A & E from ceasing business activities with a party they deem to be damaging to their brand.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 20, 2013, 11:35:41 PM
I don't understand what's even being argued here.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Lord Dave on December 21, 2013, 12:22:01 AM
Are you trying to make the point that the backlash he is receiving is also freedom of speech?
No.  I'm saying that freedom means lack of consequences.  All speech has consequences.

LD, I have no idea what you're saying or where you're going with it.
I am trying to argue that the larger your audience, the less freedom you have when you speak.  At a national level, you have very little if any at all as the consequences are not only immediate but usually grand.


Nothing you have cited prevents A & E from ceasing business activities with a party they deem to be damaging to their brand.
I never said it didn't.
As far as I'm concerned, he screwed himself over.



Here, let me try to simplify what I'm saying:
Every word you speak to someone has consequences.  Sometimes those consequences are so little, they're virtually irrelevant.  Other times, not so much.
Also, as the number of people who see/hear/read those words increases, so do the consequences.  If he were to speak to his family only on the subject, it's likely nothing bad would happen to him.  If he were to speak to his church, he may have some murmers but nothing life style changing.  Town hall meeting: Maybe a petition.  State level: maybe some protests.  National level: Well.. you get the idea.

He did not have the freedom to speak his mind to that reporter anymore than I have the freedom to tell his boss off (assuming he needs the job).

In fact, that may be simpler to say:
Why do we not speak our minds to our superiors if we dislike them? 
Because we don't want to deal with the consequences.  We are restricted from speaking our opinion.  From expressing our feelings. 
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: rooster on December 21, 2013, 12:33:32 AM
I think you're getting literal and legal definitions confused here.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: spank86 on December 21, 2013, 12:51:54 AM
Freedom of speech means without consequences from the government, not from public opinion.
How can it be free if it's only free from one entity, especially when the elected officials are there based on public opinion?

How could it be otherwise?

If you run a shop you are free to call me a retard when I walk in but that doesn't mean I have to keep shopping with you.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: DuckDodgers on December 21, 2013, 12:56:55 AM
You have the ability to say whatever you want to, nothing is stopping you from speaking your mind about whatever to whomever.  No police are going to come arrest you for telling off your boss, speaking for/against gay marriage, etc. (except where your speech constitutes a real or perceived danger to people).  Just because there is the consequence of losing your job for telling off your boss doesn't mean you can't do it.  That is the crux of freedom of speech, you have the ability to say it but you have to ask yourself if you really should say it because of the social ramifications.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Roundy on December 21, 2013, 02:53:20 AM
Is Lord Dave trolling?  ???
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: rooster on December 21, 2013, 03:07:08 AM
Is Lord Dave trolling?  ???
That's what it seems like. 
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Alchemist21 on December 21, 2013, 04:39:16 AM
In this troll argument Dave lost.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Socker on December 21, 2013, 07:33:24 AM
Looks like I'm going to be the one going against the bandwagon here. I don't think he should have been kicked from the show. I'm probably one among few who thinks the First Amendment should be as close to an absolute right as possible. (Obviously it can't be a full absolute right, as then it would be legal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded public area) You should be able to express any opinion you want, whenever you want, without needing to worry about PC or offending someone. Losing your job because of an opinion is just as bad as losing a job for being gay.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Blanko on December 21, 2013, 07:41:12 AM
Being unprofitable for the company you work for is a valid reason for firing if you ask me.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: rooster on December 21, 2013, 02:59:57 PM
Looks like I'm going to be the one going against the bandwagon here. I don't think he should have been kicked from the show. I'm probably one among few who thinks the First Amendment should be as close to an absolute right as possible. (Obviously it can't be a full absolute right, as then it would be legal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded public area) You should be able to express any opinion you want, whenever you want, without needing to worry about PC or offending someone. Losing your job because of an opinion is just as bad as losing a job for being gay.
That is absolutely ridiculous. Say whatever you want without offending someone? And how do you imagine that could work in reality?
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Socker on December 21, 2013, 04:53:23 PM
Looks like I'm going to be the one going against the bandwagon here. I don't think he should have been kicked from the show. I'm probably one among few who thinks the First Amendment should be as close to an absolute right as possible. (Obviously it can't be a full absolute right, as then it would be legal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded public area) You should be able to express any opinion you want, whenever you want, without needing to worry about PC or offending someone. Losing your job because of an opinion is just as bad as losing a job for being gay.
That is absolutely ridiculous. Say whatever you want without offending someone? And how do you imagine that could work in reality?
I guess that's what makes me different from other people, it is literally impossible to offend me, and I'm confused when others are offended by trivial things.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 21, 2013, 05:08:30 PM
Looks like I'm going to be the one going against the bandwagon here. I don't think he should have been kicked from the show. I'm probably one among few who thinks the First Amendment should be as close to an absolute right as possible. (Obviously it can't be a full absolute right, as then it would be legal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded public area) You should be able to express any opinion you want, whenever you want, without needing to worry about PC or offending someone. Losing your job because of an opinion is just as bad as losing a job for being gay.

But that's not what the First Amendment is about.  It's about the government not being able to restrict your freedom of speech.  It doesn't say anything about employment with private companies
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: rooster on December 21, 2013, 05:09:46 PM
Looks like I'm going to be the one going against the bandwagon here. I don't think he should have been kicked from the show. I'm probably one among few who thinks the First Amendment should be as close to an absolute right as possible. (Obviously it can't be a full absolute right, as then it would be legal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded public area) You should be able to express any opinion you want, whenever you want, without needing to worry about PC or offending someone. Losing your job because of an opinion is just as bad as losing a job for being gay.
That is absolutely ridiculous. Say whatever you want without offending someone? And how do you imagine that could work in reality?
I guess that's what makes me different from other people, it is literally impossible to offend me, and I'm confused when others are offended by trivial things.
I'm sure that's not true.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on December 21, 2013, 05:39:29 PM
Looks like I'm going to be the one going against the bandwagon here. I don't think he should have been kicked from the show. I'm probably one among few who thinks the First Amendment should be as close to an absolute right as possible. (Obviously it can't be a full absolute right, as then it would be legal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded public area) You should be able to express any opinion you want, whenever you want, without needing to worry about PC or offending someone. Losing your job because of an opinion is just as bad as losing a job for being gay.

He didn't lose his job for having an opinion. He lost his job for causing damage to his employer's reputation. If you work in a shop and decide to tell all the customers about your mysoginistic opinion of women the shop is likely going to fire you because they don't want their female customers driven away.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Socker on December 21, 2013, 07:08:59 PM
Looks like I'm going to be the one going against the bandwagon here. I don't think he should have been kicked from the show. I'm probably one among few who thinks the First Amendment should be as close to an absolute right as possible. (Obviously it can't be a full absolute right, as then it would be legal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded public area) You should be able to express any opinion you want, whenever you want, without needing to worry about PC or offending someone. Losing your job because of an opinion is just as bad as losing a job for being gay.

He didn't lose his job for having an opinion. He lost his job for causing damage to his employer's reputation. If you work in a shop and decide to tell all the customers about your mysoginistic opinion of women the shop is likely going to fire you because they don't want their female customers driven away.
I suppose so, perhaps I misunderstood the reason. Everyone I hear talking about this has been talking about First Amendment stuff, so I assumed that was what it was about. Sorry if I completely missed the point on this one.
Looks like I'm going to be the one going against the bandwagon here. I don't think he should have been kicked from the show. I'm probably one among few who thinks the First Amendment should be as close to an absolute right as possible. (Obviously it can't be a full absolute right, as then it would be legal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded public area) You should be able to express any opinion you want, whenever you want, without needing to worry about PC or offending someone. Losing your job because of an opinion is just as bad as losing a job for being gay.
That is absolutely ridiculous. Say whatever you want without offending someone? And how do you imagine that could work in reality?
I guess that's what makes me different from other people, it is literally impossible to offend me, and I'm confused when others are offended by trivial things.
I'm sure that's not true.
What makes you think that?
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Rama Set on December 22, 2013, 03:13:46 AM
Because it sounds unlike human behavior?
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: markjo on December 28, 2013, 03:27:36 AM
I guess that's what makes me different from other people, it is literally impossible to offend me, and I'm confused when others are offended by trivial things.
Obviously those who are offended don't consider offensive things to be trivial.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: jroa on December 28, 2013, 08:09:02 AM
Am I the only person here who thinks this was all just planned publicity for that crappy show?
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: rooster on December 28, 2013, 03:41:03 PM
A&E has decided to keep filming the show with Phil. So this whole little "controversy" was pointless.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Snupes on December 28, 2013, 06:26:25 PM
Wow.
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Roundy on December 28, 2013, 06:34:10 PM
It wasn't because of the controversy that they caved?  ???
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: rooster on December 28, 2013, 08:29:21 PM
It wasn't because of the controversy that they caved?  ???
Unfortunately that seems to be the case.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/12/28/duck-dynasty-to-resume-filming-with-phil-robertson-ae-announces/

And apparently there were petitions, threats of boycotting the station, etc., until they brought Phil back.

Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Space Cowgirl on December 28, 2013, 11:22:08 PM
And now their ratings will be better than ever! It was a set up from the start, imo. The Robertson family aren't backwoods rednecks. Most of them have college educations, and their entire look is staged for the show. Phil was in character when he gave that interview.


Also some idiot is suing A&E (and president Obama) http://blogs.findlaw.com/celebrity_justice/2013/12/phil-robertson-fan-sues-ae-over-duck-dynasty-suspension.html  (the same guy who sued Apple because he used an Apple computer to look at porn).
Title: Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: markjo on December 28, 2013, 11:56:19 PM
It wasn't because of the controversy that they caved?  ???
It was because backlash against A&E's decision was worse than the backlash against the initial controversy.