YOU need to think. If anyone goes to jail because of what they said, it had to be something they did illegal. You need to recalibrate. Or better yet, bring me any example of "people in the US sent to jail for what they say" then we'll examine the case.

 

I had to get a friend out of jail for calling a nigger whore a nigger whore.

 

Well, post the exact details including the charges. There is no ordinance for just using a disparaging remark. Was it a dispute? Was it loud enough to create a breach of the peace? Was any battery involved? Did he fight the officers? Was he trespassing? Was he drunk? Aside from his crude name he had to compound it to get put in Jail. You have no case of "jailed for lack of freedom of speech".

 

Nothing like the things you posted.
I did forget one word. Damn nigger whore was what he said.
No battery involved. Not loud, no one heard it except the damn nigger whore. No fight with cops. He was at his home. Not drinking.

What else would you think he could be arrested for?
Like I said, we do not have freedom of speech. I gave you an example like you asked.
How would you explain it other than he got arrested for what he said. To me that is a good example of no freedom of speech.

 

No offense but you were not there and it's his side of the story. I wanted to know the actual charge. Disorderly conduct, Disturbing the peace? She was at his house? Domestic dispute? What was the charge not what his story is.

 

This is a rare occasion where I am in agreement with Rick (Well, at least with his opening post).


Firstly, Gay rights do not trump your first amendment rights. And as long as you remain sensible and not follow Europe's lead, gay rights should never take priority over freedom of speech.

However, freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to say what you like, where you like. Freedom of speech merely means you legally have the right to promote and share your own views from your own platform without any form of government shutting you down. It doesn't mean you go on someone else's show and spread your beliefs if they don't want you to. That violates the rights of the owners of the show.

In the UK things are different. The European Human rights act protects freedom of speech. However, there are so many caveats to that when applied to UK law, that effectively freedom of speech is non existent. Excluding China, Russia and the middle east, we have some of the most intrusive censorship laws in the world.

 

Just thought I would see how much you actually know about free speech.
Very little.
The charge was verbal assault.
Does that give you a little hint how a person can be arrested for what they say.
That = no freedom of speech.

 

A verbal assault is only against statute when there is a reasonable belief a physical assault could occur. Your friend is blowing smoke up you ass and I guarantee there's a compounding element. Free speech is alive and well in America.

 

Liberals are tolerant of different kinds of people, including convicted criminals.

Many liberals are not tolerant of opposing viewpoints, even when they are presented with civility, facts, and logic.

Consider how I am flamed whenever I mention racial differences.

That hurts my feelings.

I'm a sensitive guy.

 

God!! Who cares what he said. Were his comments really that mean? We Americans have become a nation of cry babies whose feelings get hurt too easily. Grow a sack USA!! This shit is ridiculous

 

Well, I'm not as sure as you are old boy.

The concept of free speech in the constitution is clear; "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech"

There's a lot of case law on the topic. For example;
one cannot be made to speak, as in citing the pledge of allegiance in school.
Symbolic speech is still speech, so wearing a black armband to protest a war is protected speech. Men wearing women's clothes to further the cause of transexuals is protected.
Using offensive language and terms is protected speech. I can call someone a redneck, and it's protected (but not if I said it with some confidence that it would start a riot, such as yelling fire in a crowded theater). The reaction of the redneck aside, my speech is protected.
Of interest, I cannot violate a law in furtherance of my right to free speech. For example, I can burn a flag, but not a draft card.
I can't advocate the illegal use of drugs, but I can advocate the legalization of illegal drugs.

Now, you ask, why is this relevant to Phil's circumstance?

Well, first of all it is clearly free speech; Phil has the absolute right to state that he believes homosexuality is a sin, and he can cite the bible as his authority. The government has no right to persecute him for making these statements, no matter how offensive they might be to others.

So fine you say, what does this have to do with A&E's decision to "suspend" Phil for his statements?

A&E is a public forum, much as a newspaper or radio show is. The courts have been pretty consistent; a public forum, be it a park, radio transmission, or TV show, has to protect the right to free speech, and cannot abridge that right. Public forums, like parks and newspapers were exactly what the writers had in mind when they wrote the first amendment.

Now if Phil was inciting a riot, or advocating violence, his comments would not be protected by the first amendment.

He wasn't doing that. The worst thing he said was that homosexuality is a sin. Says so right in the bible, he went on. Later, he clarified his comments; he doesn't hate homosexuals, he loves everyone. It's God's job to sort it all out. He was certainly not advocating violence or hate towards homosexuals.

The public statements of the Gay and Lesbian organizations reacting to Phil's comments were closer to hate speech than anything Phil had to say.

So, when A&E suspended him for his remarks it's pretty clear, they abridged his right to free speech. Unlawfully.

Now, Phil is indeed a redneck, and it's not the style of a redneck to sue over something like this, so I wouldn't expect Phil to take that route.

I would not be surprised however if his family rallied around and boycotted A&E.

In any case, I see this as yet another knee jerk reaction of extremists who rally to silence anyone or anything that does not fit their views.

And the irony is that the GLBT community has used free speech protection when they publicize their right to sexual choice, and demand that they be given the same rights and protections as heterosexuals.

Apparently, it isn't a two way street.

Nope, I can't say that free speech is alive and well in America.

 

Phils employer has every right to fire him or suspend him. They are a private company and the fact that it is a service available to the public does not curtail their rights to protect their business as they see fit. The point could be made of Joe's fruit stand. It serves the public. If Joe has an employee who insults his customers (as phil did homosexuals) then Joe would be stupid not to fire him. Free speech IS alive and well in America just as is the right to conduct your business as you see fit.

 

I don't remember saying I wasn't there when it happened. That is just something you decided on your own.
You can believe anything you want. You asked for something then decide to make changes you want to get the results you want.
The cops arrested him. The charge was verbal assault. The only words spoken was "Damn nigger whore".
You can do whatever you need but, like I said, there is no freedom of speech.

 

Ok....I give up. Scenario: Two guys at house, one alleged black prostitute, for no reason one guy calls prostitute and offensive name. Cops come and arrest one of the guys for "verbal assault". Okkkkkkkkkkkk End of free speech in America.

 

A&E will re-instate Phil Robertson.

What is more, people in the management chain that suspended him will be fired.

So, I wholeheartedly agree: freedom of speech is alive and well in America. Such as it is.

 

Nothing. He hasn't gone to jail, he hasn't been fined.


On the other hand, his constitutional right to work at the place of his choice might have been infringed - except that there's never been one.

 

That was just one example I am sure of because I was there. He wasn't arrested on the spot. The nigger whore called the cops. They came to his door and asked him to step outside. He refused. They just waited outside until he came out then arrested him.
I can't remember what the fine was but he stayed in jail overnight.

You can be arrested for anything a cop decides to arrest you for. There doesn't even have to be a law against what you did or were doing.

A cop attempted to arrest me for an open container. I refused. He called in reinforcements. Again I refused to go. Finally an officer came up and told them there wasn't such a law and to leave me alone. Now how many people do you think they had arrested for the same thing?

We have very few freedoms left. Freedom of speech is not one of them.

 

+1


I would step back even further and question the OP's basic premise:

How, exactly, were Robertson's remarks about sin in poor taste?

 

From the POV of "i'm a big tv star," it's never a good idea to piss off chunks of your potential audience and/or your channel's advertisers. From a personal standpoint though, it depends entirely on opinion. Anyone who believes in the absolute truth of the Bible won't see them as poor taste at all. Anyone who believes in the freedom of the individual, would be horrified at a guy calling them "sinners" for choosing to behave in ways that he doesn't.

 

Again you are making up your own story.
I did mention that some people live a sheltered life and have very little life experiences. But just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means that you are lacking in some areas.