Duck Dynasty Faux Pas

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.

A small dissection of the Marine Corps urination scandal

Share

Email

Earn

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Lockerz GrabDeliciousDiggGoogle BookmarksMySpaceStumbleUponRedditMessengerVodpodYahoo BookmarksBeboMister-WongWordPressGoogle ReaderOrkutXINGEvernoteNetvibes ShareStrandsPosterousBusiness ExchangeArtoTipdSmakNewsPlurkAIMYahoo MessengerIdenti.caMozillacaBlogger PostTypePad PostBox.netPinterestNetlogTechnorati FavoritesCiteULikeJumptagsHemidemiFunPInstapaperPhoneFavsXerpiNetvouzWinkDiigoBibSonomyBlogMarksTailrankStartAidKledyKhabbrMeneameYoolinkBookmarks.frTechnotizieNewsVineMultiplyFriendFeedPlaxo PulsePingSquidooProtopage BookmarksBlinklistFavesYiGGWebnewsSegnaloPushaYouMobSlashdotFarkAllvoicesJamespotImera BrazilTwiddlaLinkaGoGounalogHuggDiglogNowPublicTumblrLiveJournalCurrentHelloTxtSpurlYampleOneviewLinkatopiaSimpyLinkedInBuddyMarksAsk.com MyStuffViadeoMapleWistsConnoteaBackflipMyLinkVaultSiteJotSphinnDZoneCare2 NewsHyvesSphereBitty BrowserGabbrSymbaloo FeedsTagzaFolkdNewsTrustAmazon Wish ListPrintFriendlyRead It LaterTuentiEmailRediff MyPage

Google GmailYahoo MailHotmailAOL MailAny email    

By Lockerz

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/12/panetta-orders-probe-video-showing-marines-urinating-on-dead-taliban/

I was in no big hurry to follow up on this story, but I felt that I must deal with it at some point. This post is not to pass judgement but to look at a few issues.

1.  In the article, Fox News uses the word desecration in parentheses ("desecrating" the bodies).  From a sociological perspective, if these were American dead, and anyone was urinating on them, would we hesitate to call it a desecration? 

2.  Bad things happen in war.  Morals are not instilled in war time.  They are very often shed.  These men should be judged by a jury of peers, not the media or the public.  Unfortunately, their actions will be viewed by many, and it is not our mainstream media that will be the problem.  We can not filter what others find on the internet (where this video posted), and how it is used against us.  My fear is for future U.S. military personnel in the wake of this incident.  There are numerous examples of group actions that are not reflective of mainstream cultural norms in American history. This is not a new phenomenon, but as the author of the essay points out, "It shows how, in the present era of instant communication and YouTube, a tactical judgment blunder by a small number of troops can become a big strategic problem in a matter of a few hours."  An isolated incident is no longer an isolated incident. 

3.  The concept of the other plays perfectly here.  It would have been much more difficult to have done this to someone that resemble the Marines.  Because of the differences in language, diet and smell, culture, and appearance, this behavior was more acceptable.  The Japanese skull on the desk of the young girl writing her boyfriend in the Pacific. . .

4.  The justification is that these men had suffered losses at the hands of an enemy that did not fight fairly.  The same logic is used to defend the American soldiers at My Lai, under Lt. Calley.  Ultimately, if we seek to do terrible things, we will find a way to justify them, also. 

5.  God be with the soldiers and their families, especially.  Their careers are probably over.  And, God be with our enemies.  Some day we will all understand this war and find some type of peace.