"It is completely unAmerican to allow any kind of media, channel, or network to punish one or more celebrities for voicing their deeply-held personal convictions because that speech may not be popular with a certain segment of society, and they're more worried about their bottom line than the freedoms we all enjoy today. Like if you agree."
This surprised and delighted a bunch of my more conservative friends who liked and commented about Duck Dynasty, etc. I let it go for a day or two then replied with the following:
Oh, just figured out what you were referencing. Sorry for the confusion, but I was NOT talking about Phil Robertson...
I think I was talking about Martin Bashir when he (admittedly rudely) talked about Sarah Palin...
Or wait, maybe it was Phil Donohue losing his MSNBC show when he questioned Bush and the Iraq War?
Uh, the Dixie Chicks being banned from country music stations? Could have been...
No, wait, it was Ted Koppel when he read the names of soldiers who died in the Iraq War
Bill Maher losing his show on network tv?
Could have been Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes... Memory isn't what it used to be...
Uh, Sinead O'Connor being banned from SNL for ripping up a picture of the Pope?
Gilbert Gottfried from Aflac for tasteless jokes?
Paula Deen?
Alec Baldwin?
Actually, it's not unAmerican. The First Amendment applies to government not interfering with the right to free speech. Privately owned companies can do what they want - with some limitations - if they decide an employee/representative of them has become a liability. Sometimes it's people we don't like saying things we don't like, and we're all, "Yeah! That''ll teach 'em!" and sometimes it's people we admire saying things we agree with, and we get pissed, but they're not First Amendment issues.
TlalocW
= new reply since forum marked as read