Rob Rogers for December 22, 2013

’bout right.

That is really funny, in a sad sort of way. You stating that anybody else has a “holier than thou” attitude. Especially when on another thread you condemn all liberals to eternal damnation (as if you were God making judgement)! Perhaps you should try to remove the log in your own eye, before trying to remove the sliver that is in others eyes?

It seems weird, The GOP makes a whole lot of remarks about homosexuality and they get a whole lot of air time for it, but Phil Robertson makes one remark about homosexuals, and he got booted from the show.

Please !…this is NOT a First Amendment issue. Anyone can say whatever they want (within reason)…but they must also be prepared to (where have I heard THIS before ?) “take personal responsibility” for their expressed opinions. Phil Robertson (and all the others on the ‘show’) signed a talent contract that likely included a “Morals/Ethics Clause”, the purpose of which is explained (North Carolina Bar Assn.) as: What are Morals Clauses?What better way to market a product or service of your company than to have Sidney Crosby, Tom Brady, Taylor Swift or any other well known athlete or recording artist be your spokesperson? Most modern endorsement and sponsorship deals involving these high profile figures likely contain some type of morals clause intended to protect the public image of the company.1 These contractual provisions often give a company the right to terminate the contract if the conduct or actions of the athlete or celebrity brings him or her into public contempt or reflects badly on the company’s products.While the audience for “D. Dynasty” may (largely) agree with Phil, A&E has a much broader, more diverse audience than (Phil’s descriptor) “White trash” fans…and his PUBLIC espousal of personal opinion (based on anecdotal experiences of a self-described less-than-biased speaker) could negatively effect A&E’s reputation and investments in other properties, as well as “D.D.” If that is their take, A&E is within their rights and responsibilities to their investors, advertisers and audience, to punish (including dismissal – and/or show cancellation) the offending party. Phil’s company name belongs to him (registered TM ?), but not the show (or its title), which are property of A&E, who put up the $$$, pay him, produce and air the very lucrative (for Phil – likely likely multiplying his business success, as well as direct compensation from A&E) ‘reality’ (yeah, right !) show. His off-hand dismissal of the challenges and experiences of others, whose lives he has neither observed nor shared (remember, he said “WHITE” trash !), is the offense…not his PRIVATE opinions or beliefs – right or wrong. Some viewers, no doubt, watch to see what goofy stuff these backwoods buffoons will come up with next…but when their provincial actions are removed from A&E’s editorial control (GQ or elsewhere), the “Dynasty” voluntarily assumes responsibility…and must suffer the consequences. It’s NOT Free-Speech – it’s Business !

Harley: verbal is slander, written down, it’s libel, like 90% of the right-wingers’ posts regarding President Obama.

While the ‘controversy’ is full boil, ratings, hence revenue from ‘D D’ will be even higher…like rubber-neckers @ a wreck…they are taking advantage against future loss…sound business practice, yes? While Phil’s attitudes may not alienate ‘D D’ fans, A&E has many more ‘investments’, with variant audience demographics whose support MAY be effected by Phil’s take on the history and lives of “others”, possibly causing (much) more damage than the loss of one opinionated ‘Actor’ or a semi-scripted “reality” series (just come up with another proposal – “Duck Dynasty” is FAR from the FIRST of such, and (as long as there’s $$$ in them) won’t be the LAST. The Networks ought to be honest and just call them “SitComs”, but that’s so 20th Century.

As an American you have the First Amendment right to free speech. You do not however, have the right to a TV show. I guess the producers explained that to him…