The kerfluffle over comments by Phil Robertson, long-bearded patriarch of the popular family of duck-call makers celebrated in the A&E reality TV show "Duck Dynasty," continues to attract attention.
In case anyone has missed it, Robertson was suspended from the series because of comments he made about homosexuals in an interview.
As a result, some of his supporters have claimed that his First Amendment rights to free speech have been trampled upon by A&E. In fact, since the government is not involved, Robertson has not suffered any infringement of his rights under the Constitution. That said, it is also the case that any time someone is publicly censored, silenced or deprived of a public forum on the basis of their speech, the spirit of that amendment is violated. If nothing else, it has a chilling effect on freedom of expression.
There will be many who will say that, in this case, good. Such beliefs should be censored. People should be afraid to express them, if they're going to have them in the first place. All I have to say about that is what if the situation were reversed? What if someone were dismissed from a show for daring to speak positively about LGBT folks and the issues important to them? Not so long ago, that might have been the case, and in many parts of the world, that or worse is still happening.
Unless all are free, none are free; unless unpopular speech is protected, freedom of speech has no meaning. If freedom of speech is limited to "approved" speech, what good is it, really?
There used to be a saying to the effect of, I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. You hardly ever hear that these days, and I think that's a shame.
Of course, it can be argued that companies have a right to expect certain standards of their employees, and if said employees do not meet those, it's their right to fire them. True. But the irony in this case is that Robertson was hired simply in order to be himself. And A&E has made a ton of money off of Robertson being himself.
They were selling a particular type of down-home, backwoods image, and they got it. What they apparently failed to realize, or plan for, is that it was a package deal, and they got the whole package.
In particular, Robertson and his family have made no secret of their faith. It should come as no surprise to any of us at this point in our collective history that many evangelical Christians have fairly traditional, conservative views of human sexuality. If A&E claims to be shocked to discover that fact at this late date, then either they are being disingenuous, or they simply failed to do their homework. The egg is on their face, not Robertson's. He was doing, in effect, exactly what he was being paid to do, namely being himself, genuinely, authentically.
Whatever else you can say about Robertson, you can't fault him for being anything less than real - maybe a bit too real for A&E. They are now looking at losing their cash cow, as the family understandably rallies behind their patriarch. Duck Dynasty, the family, is undoubtedly going to be fine regardless of what happens. They were doing well before the show, and they'll continue to do well after it, as long as they continue to make high-quality duck calls.
I suspect that very few duck hunters care that much about the politics, theology or morality of the makers of their calls, just whether they bring the ducks in. Of the few who do, most will probably side with Robertson. A&E, on the other hand, may find themselves looking for a replacement for the most popular show in the network's history.
