http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/gop-politicians-defend-39-duck-dynasty-39-star-184932178--abc-news-politics.html
So, Phil from "Duck Dynasty" stated his personal beliefs to a national magazine. Should the magazine have censored his comments, as they were possibly hurtful and damaging to his career? Did it benefit the magazine to ask questions that led him to make comments that were seen as crude and destructive? Who is responsible for his words? In this society, a free society, with freedom of speech and freedom of the press, Phil solely is responsible for his comments. What he says in an interview to the press is his responsibility. Once it is out of his mouth, the magazine has a duty to its own profits to print what might catch attention, regardless of the consequences to Phil and his own income source. No one would disagree with that.
Phil is entitled to his opinion. If this is how he feels, no one thinks they can truly change his heart. But, as a public figure, his words have power. When he makes a comment like what he did, comparing homosexuality to bestiality and multiple partners, his words carry more weight. If he said this in his church, a bar with his friends, or in his own home (without cameras rolling) he has every right to speak his mind. Unfortunately, when his thoughts become public, he is responsible for them. Again, no one attempted to censor him. No one has tried to block the publication of his words. What he said is inflammatory because we are in a time of change, and the nation is trying to find a way forward. The past is easy to go back to, because we know where we came from.
This issue is being framed as an attack on religion and on free speech, both protected in the Constitution. The only problem with this line of attack is that the Constitution was designed to protect individuals (through incorporation) and states (originally the purpose of the Bill of Rights) from federal intrusion in these areas. As an individual I am allowed to say what I choose without the government acting against me. I cannot, however, criticize another man without the threat of him acting against me. If I criticize my boss, he has the right to punish me. As a student, freedom of speech is limited somewhat. Students cannot cuss or disparage other students. There are numerous examples of freedom of speech carried out. But, it can only be protection from a public (government entity) punishing an individual or group. The government is not stepping in to restrict the thoughts or words of either Phil or other conservatives that may find comfort in his words. The government has remained silent on this. While private organizations (A + E is a private company) have spoken out about their disagreement with his words, GQ, A+E, GLAD, and the NAACP are all private organizations, and have as much right to publicly criticize his views, both public comments and religious views, as he does to criticize others. Ultimately the buyers money will decide who is right in this. It is not the choice of a few to misuse the Constitution to their own personal benefit.
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana governor, has expressed his dissatisfaction with the controversy by comparing it to Miley Cyrus. No one has censored Miley Cyrus, he argues, but they have a religious man like Phil. Miley Cyrus does not have a long term contract with a television company. She (I assume) has a contract with a recording company. That company found her performance at the VMAs beneficial financially to themselves. There was a lot of public outcry both from the mainstream media, the left and the right about Miley Cyrus' performance. But, record sales stayed high. In the case of Phil, there was outcry from many sources for his comments. The company that holds his contract (A+E) felt they wanted to distance themselves from this controversy. They chose to suspend his contract, and they had the contractual right to do so. If Miley were still working for Disney, presumably they would do the same. Miley was just working for a company that allowed greater latitude. That is the difference. This is and never was an issue of the First Amendment, and freedoms from government intrusion. It is the freedom of companies to choose what is in their own self interest. Please don't muddy the waters.
