Cruz Defends 'Duck Dynasty' Star From 'Thought Police'
Source: TPM
CAITLIN MACNEAL DECEMBER 19, 2013, 2:11 PM EST
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Thursday defended 'Duck Dynasty' star Phil Robertson after he was suspended from the television show for making controversial anti-gay remarks in an interview with GQ magazine.
"If you believe in free speech or religious liberty, you should be deeply dismayed over the treatment of Phil Robertson. Phil expressed his personal views and his own religious faith; for that, he was suspended from his job," Cruz wrote on his Facebook page. "In a free society, anyone is free to disagree with him--but the mainstream media should not behave as the thought police censoring the views with which they disagree."
Cruz argued that people love 'Duck Dynasty' because it shows a family open about its faith.
"The reason that so many Americans love Duck Dynasty is because it represents the America usually ignored or mocked by liberal elites: a family that loves and cares for each other, believes in God, and speaks openly about their faith," Cruz wrote. Cruz has expressed his love for the reality show before. He talked about the "God-fearing" family "who love guns" during his September talkathon on the Senate floor.
###
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cruz-defends-duck-dynasty-star-from-thought-police
get the red out
(13,466 posts)And he caused problems for the corporation paying him, so this just sounds like a employee-employer dispute. And don't Republicans always come down on the side of the corporation?
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)you point that out to them though. I've tried once or twice to mention the "right to work" rules that pretty much give A&E the ability to fire the duck guy and they get kind of pissy. They start misquoting the Constitution and spouting all kinds of religious liberty shit and then they slink away.
get the red out
(13,466 posts)Why doesn't it automatically change when the right needs it to then change back when it will affect liberals? LOL
liberalmuse
(18,672 posts)but when it crosses into the territory where you hurt other human beings, then fuck your faith. Where were these people when Bashir and Baldwin were fired for expressing their thoughts? Hypocrites!
On edit: I'm not even going into the "free speech" issue with people who obviously don't "get" how it was meant to work. It's a colossal waste of time.
dropboss11
(29 posts)Religion offends. Even if you're an atheist that philosophy offends some. I may not agree with what the duck dynasty star said about beastiality and homosexuals, but because you may be offended does not mean he did not have a right to say it. It is free speech. What A&E channel does about it is their business, not yours.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)We give him too much importance and exposure.
frylock
(34,825 posts)kimmylavin
(2,284 posts)If the things he said are an expression of faith (granted, I haven't been to church in a while, but I don't remember the priests talking about vaginas and anuses, nor about how one white man's experience means that Jim Crow didn't exist), maybe it's no wonder that more and more people are turning from religion.
DeschutesRiver
(2,354 posts)get the red out
(13,466 posts)than the censor is doing a really bad job, since all I've seen online all day is all the shit he said.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Americans may not have food or warm clothing on Christmas Day. On the other hand we did make sure the banks got $85 billion to profit from this month.
I suspect the ghosts of Christmas past, present, and future said the hell with it and left.
Ho Ho Ho.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)as far as I'm concerned.
$ame $creweR$ breed.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)He's just a walking lump of coal.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)The First Amendment protects Americans, including Mr. Duck Dynasty, from government action as a result of the exercise of the right to free speech. The duck guy is not being jailed or fined. Nor, to my knowledge, is A&E a subsidiary of the U.S. government.
See me after class, Rafael.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)This is nothing but another cheap political ploy to be important and avoid being marginalized. He is an obnoxious, egotistical asshole!
Paladin
(28,264 posts)No surprise, there.....
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)matt819
(10,749 posts)I think not. Frankly, I don't care what he thinks. I don't care what Cruz thinks. You run the risk of crossing the line when you actually speak. At that point it's not the Thought Police at work but rather the Bigot Police. And it's not a free speech issue either. These people are free to say what they like. That doesn't mean others can't respond, equally freely. Sometimes I think these people just don't understand. Anything. And I don't care where their degrees are from. Something went haywire with these people.
Blue Owl
(50,425 posts)n/t
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)You really want to defend him?
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)"those with that platform, with a microphone, a camera in their face, they have to have some more responsibility taken."
The village idiot- Sarah Palin
Gothmog
(145,321 posts)Unless a governmental entity is doing the censorship, the First Amendment does not apply. Here the TV network is free to take whatever steps they want and there is no violation of the First Amendment. This is basic constitutional law. 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.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)A&E is entitled to not provide a platform for his ravings.
Cha
(297,317 posts)scruz crap is all about.
Freakin' hateful "Bible Thumper".. they're the worst kind of bigoted assholes on the Planet.
I'm thinking Jesus would have to forgive this idiot for using his name Falsely.
So "suspended".. does that means he gets to come back after he "apologizes" for being such an ugly bigot?
fujiyama
(15,185 posts)A&E is a corporation (jointly owned by ABC and Hearst), and I thought corporations are Ted Cruz's friends.
And corporations are private entities that can determine the kind of people they air. And in this case, they have decided that they don't want to broadcast racists and homophobes.
Besides where were they when Alec Baldwin and Martin Bashir were booted?
louis-t
(23,295 posts)His employer just figgered he wasn't stupid enough to say something like this. They figgered wrong.
IggleDoer
(1,186 posts)Really? Do these guys think?
EC
(12,287 posts)you're a lawyer, you know about contracts...I'm sure that there is a morals clause that covers this. He signed the contract.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)SkatmanRoth
(843 posts)But we already knew that