Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Freedom of speech = saying whatever you want and nobody complaining about it? But only if someone is saying what YOU PERSONALLY like, otherwise it's "boycott!!!!!!"
Do you not understand how freedom of speech works?
Phil had the freedom to speak.
GLAAD had the freedom to speak.
No one freedom of speech was in any way impeded.
Not to mention freedom of speech has to do with the GOVERNMENT not prohibiting or impeding a persons speech. It has nothing to do with other people or groups speaking out against someones opinions, calling for boycotts, or calling for someone to be fired.
Phil said something that glaad did not like
glaad contacted A&E...
Phil removed from his job....
In this situation, glaad was wrong...
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
So how exactly should they have done it differently that would have satisfied you?
Put a public statement out that they were irritated at DD for what Phil said...not try to harm him in anyway...
Why do you support harming anyone for what they say, in this type of situation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
So you are saying Phil couldn't say what he said? A&E is not a constitutionally wrong company, they do not have a freedom of speech clause, they can fire anyone they choose that says something inappropriate and that is 100% legal for them to do, something that I don't think you understand or something you are pretending you don't understand.
Can you tell me if A&E was going to remove Phil from his job prior to glaad speaking out? If not, then your point is useless.....
Phil said something that glaad did not like
glaad contacted A&E...
Phil removed from his job....
In this situation, glaad was wrong...
Put a public statement out that they were irritated at DD for what Phil said...not try to harm him in anyway...
Why do you support harming anyone for what they say, in this type of situation?
Can you tell me if A&E was going to remove Phil from his job prior to glaad speaking out? If not, then your point is useless.....
So a public statement is okay, but if a company reacts to that public statement, then that is not okay in your book? So should they not have done a public statement against it?
Also, who is harming Phil? I haven't heard of anyone attacking him, but I have heard of people speaking out against what he has said.
So can you tell me why you are against GLAAD speaking out against Phil when you just said that you would be okay with GLAAD releasing a public statement against Phil, which most people call "speaking out."
You try so hard, but you really can't get out of this hole you are digging.
Also, who did GLAAD contact at A&E and what does it matter that they contact a company? Should it be illegal to contact companies? If a product that is mailed to me is defective, is it wrong for me to contact the company to complain because someone might be punished for the error?
Actually it is on topic, you are just against freedom of speech....why do you hate freedom of speech?
Free Speech was never the issue here. The First Amendment was written to protect citizens from repercussions for speaking out against the government.
It was never intended to protect an individual from being judged in the court of public opinion for shooting off his mouth and making homophobic and racist statements.
You say it, you own it, and all the pushback generated by your statements. Welcome to America.
Free Speech was never the issue here. The First Amendment was written to protect citizens from repercussions for speaking out against the government.
It was never intended to protect an individual from being judged in the court of public opinion for shooting off his mouth and making homophobic and racist statements.
You say it, you own it, and all the pushback generated by your statements. Welcome to America.
I agree, it is a shame that chuck doesn't realize this.
Free Speech was never the issue here. The First Amendment was written to protect citizens from repercussions for speaking out against the government.
It was never intended to protect an individual from being judged in the court of public opinion for shooting off his mouth and making homophobic and racist statements.
You say it, you own it, and all the pushback generated by your statements. Welcome to America.
He DID own it. He never denied or apologized.
Too bad glaaad doesn't allow people to speak their minds without having little hissy fits. There was no pushback against Phil except in the minds of goofballs who think making a stink about nothing makes them big boys.
I agree, it is a shame that chuck doesn't realize this.
So, I will ask you.
Why was Phil removed from his job?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
