The Duck Dynasty ruckus

has led me to believe that a lot of people do not understand how the First Amendment works.

The part of the First Amendment pertaining to free speech means that the government can't censor our media or persecute someone for speaking out. That's pretty much it.

What is going on with the Duck Dynasty is that A&E has suspended Phil from further shows until further notice. This is within the rights of A&E. They have committed no legal foul. It is their show and they can do with it as they please.

While a lot of people (myself included) support Phil, there really is no legal action we can take against A&E.

On the other hand, nobody can force the people to watch a TV show or buy a certain brand of merchandise. Because of the actions of A&E, people are simply hitting A&E where it hurts the most. They are wallopping them in the wallet by refusing to do business with them.

Incidentally, if a product says 'Duck Commander' on it, it is from the Robertson's company. Anything labeled 'Duck Dynasty' on it puts money in the pockets of A&E, or so I have been told.

I knew little of the Robertsons until a couple of days ago. I've had the show on my TV before numerous times, but as background noise. I haven't sat down to seriously watch it but when the boycott is over I think I will watch an episode or two.

What I can say from what I have read about the Robertsons is that they have three things in life that matters to them, religion, family and duck hunting. Nothing wrong with that.

I understand that when the contracts for the show were signed the A&E people agreed to this.

Apparently the A&E people didn't understand very well that it was pretty likely that at least one of the Robertsons was likely to give a pretty candid interview involving their religion.

Phil gave GQ magazine an interview and A&E objected to what Phil said.

What did they expect? I do not believe a gag order was a part of the Robertson's contract. If it was, I would imagine that it would have surfaced by now.

I am likely one of the minority of people that took the time to chase down the GQ interview and read it carefully.

Now, I'm going to stop here and clarify a few things. 

If you are some kind of souped-up religious fanatic that thinks I have taken the side of the religious right, guess again. My dogtag is stamped 'No Preference'. Please step aside.

If you are a homophobic, take a hike. I have posted over time  simply that someone's sex life involving consenting adults is nobody's business. Like Phil, I don't hate gays.

If you are some gay 'celebrate the beauty of my homosexuality and I've been wronged.' type, hit the bricks. Just as I have nothing to celebrate over being straight, you have nothing to celebrate by being gay. We're just hard wired different and if you're smart you'll leave it at that. 

What happened in the interview is that Phil basically said that he had a sexual preference for women. He may have been a little crude about it, but that's what he said.

Guess what? Many of us do have a preference for the opposite sex. You don't say! Whoda thought such a thing.

Later on in the interview he said he doesn't hate anybody. Apparently he's a lot more tolerant than a lot of his detractors than I am.

The reason I am taking sides on this issue is simply because a good, decent human being has been shit on by a  team of unscrupulous media hacks that have taken his remarks totally out of context.

What A&E and the usual gang of agenda ridden bastards have done is attack a simple, decent human being. I don't like it and I'm letting my wallet do my talking. I'm boycotting A&E for a while.



To find out why the blog is pink just cut and paste this: http://piccoloshash.blogspot.com/2009/12/my-feminine-side-blog-stays-pink.html NO ANIMALS WERE HARMED IN THE WRITING OF TODAY'S ESSAY