To Conservatives about the First Amendment and "Reality" TV bigots

[Beearewhyain]

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech"

Now what this means, follow me here, is there can be no law that prevents someone from expressing their opinion within certain constraints. However, it does not prevent social repercussions from occurring due to expressing those opinion.

What does this mean? Well, it means that the KKK or Phelps or Neo-Nazis can say just about whatever they want and the government can not actively suppress those view, and I support that. It does not mean that they have the right to say whatever they want through any means they want and never have to hear opposing opinions and/or have economic repercussions that result from the public finding those view unacceptable. That is NOT a constitutional issue. The speech is still "free" from government suppression so stop conflating the damn issue and learn what the Constitution and Bill of Rights actually mean. You know, the document you profess to know so well and wave around every time you think Obama made you stub your toe.

[msongs]

1. only applies to congress, which has been extrapolated to other governmental agencies. does NOT

apply to non governmental entities

[Gothmog]

2. The First Amendment only applies to State Actors

Unless there is a governmental entity involved in the censorship decision, the First Amendment does not apply. The First Amendment only applies to censorship done by a federal, state or local governmental entity and does not apply to private parties such TV networks. This is basic constitutional law.

[el_bryanto]

3. Was there an organized movement to get him off the air?

I am kind of leaning towards the whole thing being theatrics rather than any thing real. I think he'll be off for a few episodes and then he'l go on back, in a return. Either as a redemption arc or a F-You to people who don't like him, either of which makes "good" television.

Bryant

[Savannahmann]

4. There are only three episodes left in the season

They have obviously already been shot, and probably already edited. So taking him out is probably just short of impossible.

So what will happen? A&E will issue a statement denouncing Phil's words, and then pointing out that Duck Dufus stars are entitled to their opinions. Then A&E will renew the show, especially if the ratings jump, and they will as more people turn in to see what outrageous thing will be happening this next week.

If A&E does not renew, Fox will pick it up, and put it on prime time all heavily advertised and with the disclaimer that the opinions expressed do not reflect those of the station.

The outrage game is one trick the Conservatives have been playing on us all along. Whenever Limbaugh's numbers start to drop, he says something outrageous, is blasted by the usual groups, and then everyone rushes (no pun intended) to hear what he'll say this time. It's the Kardashian (sp probably) effect writ large. The more controversial they are, the more people turn to them to watch.

Chick-fil-A boycott was a bust, the sponsors of Limbaugh's program who did drop the show were replaced by others who wanted the exposure. The only successful outrage was Paula Deen, and that was race not orientation related.

Look at Fred Phelps. He posts on the internet that some soldier died because of Homosexuals, and nobody would know about it. He would be limited to preaching to the choir that is his extended family. But what happens? Someone calls the various groups that support soldiers, or GLBT rights. Then the news story is about how awful Fred Phelps is according to person A of this group.

Playing their game, and getting upset doesn't help our side. I posted this in another thread. Imagine how it would have played out if the Press had run to the various associations and groups and gotten this answer. "Who is Phil Robertson? Duck Dynasty? Is that some sort of cartoon version of that bad weekly soap opera from the 1980's?"

The news would have been nil, the free publicity would have been nil, and A&E would be left wondering how many people are really watching the show, and questioning their publicity efforts. Shows don't get canceled because they are controversial, look at South Park. Episodes may get held back, but the issue is discussed anyway. Shows get more viewers because they are controversial, and because they get people watching/listening, they get sponsors, and that makes the controversial types more money.

[Gothmog]

5. Here is a good explanation of the state actor requirement

Here is a brief explanation of this requirement from Cornell Law School http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/state_action_requirement

The state action requirement stems from the fact that the constitutional amendments which protect individual rights (especially the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment) are mostly phrased as prohibitions against government action. For example, the First Amendment states that “[c]ongress shall make no law” infringing upon the freedoms of speech and religion. Because of this requirement, it is impossible for private parties (citizens or corporations) to violate these amendments, and all lawsuits alleging constitutional violations of this type must show how the government (state or federal) was responsible for the violation of their rights. This is referred to as the state action requirement.