|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,641
Campfire Tracker
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,641 |
The clamor here over the Duck Commander's punishment by A&E as violations of his right to speak his mind reminds me of the not so long hue and cry here for gutting the gun mag editor who asked the question whether all gun controls ab initio are bad.
The two cases to me differ only in that we like one message and dislike the other.
Coercive censorship by liberals (or at the extreme, Communists) and conservatives (fascists) are all same-same to me.
1B
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,261
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,261 |
Don't vote knothead, it only encourages them. Anonymous
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Anonymous
"Self-reliance, free thinking, and wealth is anathema to both the power of the State and the Church." Derby Dude
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,527 Likes: 4
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,527 Likes: 4 |
You're not going to be real popular if you keep making sense.
"Live like you'll die tomorrow, but manage your grass like you'll live forever." -S. M. Stirling
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,153
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,153 |
Your right to say what you want doesn't extend to other peoples business. If A&E doesn't want Phil Robertson on the air, then that is their right, regardless of the reason or groups pushing that agenda. If Guns & Ammo doesn't want someone who may believe in gun control writing articles for their magazine, that is their right. The 1st amendment only applies to the government suppressing our speech, not businesses making decisions on who they will or won't allow to use their ventures to reach the masses.
NRA Benefactor Member
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278 |
The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law..."
When A&E censored Robertson, that was a decision by A&E--which is not even obliquely addressed by the Constitution--not a law made by Congress.
Hence, the First Amendment does not bear on the situation at all.
But from the standpoint of liberty, Robertson has no right to say anything on A&E except what they feel like broadcasting, and A&E has every right to censor Robertson.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 191
Campfire Member
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 191 |
Coercive censorship by liberals (or at the extreme, Communists) and conservatives (fascists) are all same-same to me. 1B It is obvious that you have fallen prey to the main stream media. They like to label conservatives as fascists as well. Fascist and Conservative and mutually exclusive terms. Mussolini was a self-pronounced fascist and advocated a mixed-economy. Hitler is tagged as a fascist by some by the name of his party says it all.. National Socialist. As true fiscal conservatives promote a free market economy and thus do not condone a fascist, mixed economy you do them a disservice and the MSM a service by referring to conservatives as fascists. Coercive censorship on the non-left side may indeed by fascist but by tying fascist and conservative together does us all a disservice. Liberalism in the extreme may be communism but conservatism in the extreme is not fascism.
Vladimir I. Lenin claimed, "One of the basic conditions for victory of socialism is the arming of the workers (Communists) and the disarming of the bourgeoisie (the middle class)."
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 59,180 Likes: 3
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 59,180 Likes: 3 |
The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law..."
When A&E censored Robertson, that was a decision by A&E--which is not even obliquely addressed by the Constitution--not a law made by Congress.
Hence, the First Amendment does not bear on the situation at all.
But from the standpoint of liberty, Robertson has no right to say anything on A&E except what they feel like broadcasting, and A&E has every right to censor Robertson. Exactly.. And if the DD family doesn't like it, they can take their show to another network - and they'd have NO problem finding one..
Ex- USN (SS) '66-'69 Pro-Constitution. LET'S GO BRANDON!!!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,181 Likes: 7
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,181 Likes: 7 |
Your right to say what you want doesn't extend to other peoples business. If A&E doesn't want Phil Robertson on the air, then that is their right, regardless of the reason or groups pushing that agenda. If Guns & Ammo doesn't want someone who may believe in gun control writing articles for their magazine, that is their right. The 1st amendment only applies to the government suppressing our speech, not businesses making decisions on who they will or won't allow to use their ventures to reach the masses. Businesses and people also have a freedom of association that covers A&E rights to not employ Phil, and the pursuit channels right to try and hire him.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,455
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,455 |
Let the audience of Duck Dynesty and the Robertson family deal with A&E and let the buyers and advertisers of the gun magazine deal with the magazine editor. I feel that A&E and the gun magazine will make the correct decision.
|
|
|
|
604 members (10Glocks, 10ring1, 12344mag, 16Racing, 1234, 1badf350, 68 invisible),
2,482
guests, and
1,361
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,194,351
Posts18,527,018
Members74,031
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|