Phil Robertson (of Duck Dynasty) Suck My Duck

[economistman]

I'd like to share this article here and get people's reactions to the Phil Robertson controversy. Should people be able to say anything in the name of Free Speech?

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/phil-robertson-suck-my-duck-2/discrimination/2013/12/24/80764#.Urqf0H5wFqk

[Scuba]

1. Robertson can say all the stupid things he likes ...

... and decent people can boycott him and the network/restaurants/shops that hawk his products.

[Ranchemp.]

2. "Should people be able to say anything in the name of Free Speech?"

Yes. Period.

[PeaceNikki]

3. Without consequence? Nope.

[Ranchemp.]

4. I didn't say without consequence,

if someone spews bigoted, hateful speech, which is their right to do, then they damn well better be prepared to accept the consequences of that speech.
Merry Christmas.

[lunasun]

5. hate speech is seen as brave

hate and ignorance as “biblical"

Can one say anything?
US laws and interpretations
I thtink the last big ruling on hate speech

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992), the issue of freedom to express hatred arose again when a gang of white racists burned a cross in the front yard of a black family. The local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, criminalized such racist and hate-filled expressions and the teenager was charged thereunder. Scalia, writing for SCOTUS, held that the prohibition against hate speech was unconstitutional as it contravened the First Amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance. Scalia explicated the fighting words exception as follows: “The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey.”[71] Because the hate speech ordinance was not concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of the freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence.[72]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

[Scuba]

6. And that's what makes Scalia such a dick.

[Iggo]

7. He can say anything he wants and not have the gov't come after him for it.

The free market, on the other hand, has its own rules.

[Terra Alta]

8. He can say whatever the hell he wants

And the government cannot censor him. His employers, OTOH has every right to fire him if they feel he is hurting their brand.