It looks like the intolerant right is trying to suppress and censor A&E’s free-speech rights to express its condemnation of offensive comments made by one of its reality stars. It also appears to be trying to suppress A&E’s first-amendment right to free association by putting political pressure on A & E to end the suspension.
Hmm. Is this “intolerance,” or just the way the free-market place of ideas is supposed to work?
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
It looks like the intolerant right is trying to suppress and censor A&E’s free-speech rights to express its condemnation of offensive comments made by one of its reality stars. It also appears to be trying to suppress A&E’s first-amendment right to free association by putting political pressure on A & E to end the suspension.
Hmm. Is this “intolerance,” or just the way the free-market place of ideas is supposed to work?
[/quote]
A&E went into a business relationship with him knowing his position on this topic. He has been openly preaching the same thing for years. Then it goes viral and after they have used him to up their ratings and the heat is turned up on them they dump him, it seems very hypocritical on their part.
Question for any lawyers:
A&E wanted to fire Phil because of the bad press he allegedly placed on their company. Would they be able to wait until sponsors dropped the network and then scapegoat Phil? Or would that still be illegal? I hope that makes sense.
I ask because we had a lawyer visit us at school and I asked him if I found out one of my employees were active members in the Westboro baptist church and I could show it was harmful to business if I could fire them. He kind of dodged the question and suggested I find something else to fire him for.
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
Question for any lawyers:
A&E wanted to fire Phil because of the bad press he allegedly placed on their company. Would they be able to wait until sponsors dropped the network and then scapegoat Phil? Or would that still be illegal? I hope that makes sense.
I ask because we had a lawyer visit us at school and I asked him if I found out one of my employees were active members in the Westboro baptist church and I could show it was harmful to business if I could fire them. He kind of dodged the question and suggested I find something else to fire him for.[/quote]
Here are the basics:
I doubt anyone is going to give you specific legal advice about a real person and real situation online. Hire an employment lawyer if you need to for actual legal advice.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
Question for any lawyers:
A&E wanted to fire Phil because of the bad press he allegedly placed on their company. Would they be able to wait until sponsors dropped the network and then scapegoat Phil? Or would that still be illegal? I hope that makes sense.
I ask because we had a lawyer visit us at school and I asked him if I found out one of my employees were active members in the Westboro baptist church and I could show it was harmful to business if I could fire them. He kind of dodged the question and suggested I find something else to fire him for.[/quote]
Here are the basics:
I doubt anyone is going to give you specific legal advice about a real person and real situation online. Hire an employment lawyer if you need to for actual legal advice.
Edit: I am also not sure the duck guy is an “employee” and not an independent contractor.
[/quote]
It’s not a real situation.
I was curious of what A&E’s options were if they actually wanted to fire Phil because I’ve been confused for a while of my own potential options if the situation would ever arise.
I wouldn’t make such comments in public your personal opinions if very controversial should stay private. Seeing that a&e is a private company they have every right to fire him. They raise alot of money for charity so I’m glad they are successful and can do that, I think he should be able to voice an opinion but if you do so and represent a private company you can expect for ramifications to occur.
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
It’s not a real situation.
I was curious of what A&E’s options were if they actually wanted to fire Phil because I’ve been confused for a while of my own potential options if the situation would ever arise.[/quote]
The answer is complicated and each case depends on its facts. Generally, an employer can’t discriminate against someone “because of” their membership in a particular religion, but an employee also isn’t allowed to use religious beliefs as a justification to disrupt or harm the business. Read the bit in the link about “undue hardship.” I personally don’t think the issue here is clear cut or that A & E wouldn’t have defenses. I’d be curious to see what the internal e-mails at A & E said, which would likely be discoverable on the issue of motivation. Assuming the duck guy was even an employee and not an I.C. and covered by “employment discrimination” laws.
[quote]Jlabs wrote:
I wouldn’t make such comments in public your personal opinions if very controversial should stay private. [/quote]
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure the purpose of freedom is speech is to protect unpopular and controversial speech. It’s not Phil’s duty to keep his opinion private, it’s other’s duty to not threaten his livelihood for expressing his thoughts.
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
[quote]Jlabs wrote:
I wouldn’t make such comments in public your personal opinions if very controversial should stay private. [/quote]
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure the purpose of freedom is speech is to protect unpopular and controversial speech. It’s not Phil’s duty to keep his opinion private, it’s other’s duty to not threaten his livelihood for expressing his thoughts.[/quote]
Nope. “Freedom of speech” prevents the government from taking action against you because of the content of your speech or your ideas. It doesn’t mean you are free to express opinions without private consequences.
[quote]Jlabs wrote:
I wouldn’t make such comments in public your personal opinions if very controversial should stay private. Seeing that a&e is a private company they have every right to fire him. They raise alot of money for charity so I’m glad they are successful and can do that, I think he should be able to voice an opinion but if you do so and represent a private company you can expect for ramifications to occur.[/quote]
Does not matter if they are private.
Unless he signed a contract to the contrary, expressing religious views outside of the workplace and being fired for it is lawyer up time.
A&E is liable.
Which is why they “suspended” not fired him.
If the network is smart they will just slowly start bringing him back after this all blows over. If firing him makes people happy will anyone really notice if he shows up in a non-speaking role in a few months, then says a few lines in an episode the following month.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
A&E is liable.
[/quote]
This is a pretty big call. I bet they have a team of defense lawyers right now who beg to differ. There is a lot of ground to cover before you go from potential claim to liability and religious discrimination cases are complicated.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
[quote]Jlabs wrote:
I wouldn’t make such comments in public your personal opinions if very controversial should stay private. [/quote]
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure the purpose of freedom is speech is to protect unpopular and controversial speech. It’s not Phil’s duty to keep his opinion private, it’s other’s duty to not threaten his livelihood for expressing his thoughts.[/quote]
Nope. “Freedom of speech” prevents the government from taking action against you because of the content of your speech or your ideas. It doesn’t mean you are free to express opinions without private consequences. [/quote]
Does the corporation (A&E) have the same rights under the law as the individual (Phil Robertson)?
[quote]JCMPG wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
[quote]Jlabs wrote:
I wouldn’t make such comments in public your personal opinions if very controversial should stay private. [/quote]
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure the purpose of freedom is speech is to protect unpopular and controversial speech. It’s not Phil’s duty to keep his opinion private, it’s other’s duty to not threaten his livelihood for expressing his thoughts.[/quote]
Nope. “Freedom of speech” prevents the government from taking action against you because of the content of your speech or your ideas. It doesn’t mean you are free to express opinions without private consequences. [/quote]
Does the corporation (A&E) have the same rights under the law as the individual (Phil Robertson)?
[/quote]
To a large degree, yes, but not co-extensively. A corporation is a “person” under the law, and its individual members have the right to act as persons collectively. Corporate con-law rights were also strengthened considerably after the recent Citizen’s United decision.
They arent coming out and stating an opposing a view, but seem to be trying to suppress his right to express his personal opinion and beliefs on his own personal time. Arent we then talking about 2 different things?
[quote]JCMPG wrote:
They arent coming out and stating an opposing a view, but seem to be trying to suppress his right to express his personal opinion and beliefs on his own personal time. Arent we then talking about 2 different things?[/quote]
First, he was on a publicity tour promoting the show. I’m not sure I’d characterize this as “on his own personal time.”
Second, if my employee’s public comments made on his own personal time adversely impact my revenue stream, I’m going to fire that employee pretty much 100% of the time unless I’m legally prohibited from doing so. It’s not his own purely private time if his actions are affirmatively costing me money or tarnishing my image.
Third, I’m not convinced A & E actually wants to fire the guy, or that anyone making decisions actually gives a shit about his opinions one way or the other. I suspect they are going to see which way the wind blows and which results generates the most revenue.
I am pretty sure that GQ interviewed him at his home, I wouldn’t call that out on a publicity tour. We may just be getting into semantics there though. Did you read the actual GQ article?
[quote]JCMPG wrote:
I am pretty sure that GQ interviewed him at his home, I wouldn’t call that out on a publicity tour. We may just be getting into semantics there though. Did you read the actual GQ article?[/quote]
Ok. I had read somewhere this was part of a publicity tour. So if it wasn’t I stand corrected. And no, I haven’t read the article. I don’t really care much what the guy actually said. I’m really more interested in the theory and rhetoric between “free speech” and “intolerance” and an employer’s/businesses rights to take action based on said speech. What he actually said doesn’t really matter to me nor do I think it makes a difference in the points I am making.
Is there something critical in the article I need to know about?