Home
Posted By: 1B Situational 1rst Amenemnet Rights - 12/26/13
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
Point taken.
You're not going to be real popular if you keep making sense.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by 1B

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.
Originally Posted by Barak
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..
Originally Posted by garyh9900
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.
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.
© 24hourcampfire