A&E was lobbied about some sexual words Phil Robertson said, by GLADD representative Rich Farraro according to A&E, GLADD, and Sean Hannity who gave out the telephone numbers of A&E CEO Nancy Dubuc and A&E Chairwoman Abbe Raven.

What about talk about sex? Is sex talk protected by the First Amendment? No, of course not. It’s like the word FIRE! In some cases, a fire for example, the word FIRE! is the right thing to yell. In other cases it’s not appropriate. Same for talk about sex.

As part of the lingering problems with the Puritan settlers of America, open talk about sex, especially sexual acts, sexual practices and sexual behaviors is taboo except in private and even in private there are some taboos about sex talk. Sex talk is not supposed to be used in General Company. It’s more of a community taboo than about Free Speech which is speech protected only against government. Private people must operate under a fairly elaborate set of rules that prohibit most talk about sex in open settings.

GLADD, for example does not usually discuss the actual sex practices of it’s members although in the case of the suspension of Phil Robertson by A & E it’s Robertson’s words about the sexual practices of some gay males that were objectionable to GLADD.

But the knee-jerk reaction against Phil Robertson by A & E was wrong. So was the protest by GLADD. Why were they wrong? Well for starters, Phil Robertson can say what he wants to say about gay sexual practices and GLADD would be better off to listen and follow where this issue goes. Instead they demanded and got a suspension of Phil Robertson.

Robertson was thereby harmed by the actions of A & E and of GLADD. Neither A & E nor GLADD were harmed by Robertson’s words. Of course GLADD objects not just to Robertson’s words but to their conclusion that Robertson engages in damaging behaviors to gay people. The problem is he didn’t and he doesn’t. No one was harmed by his words. Yes, words can be provocative but talking about some actual gay sexual behaviors is not taking harmful action against gay people. Robertson is entitled to his speech being protected by A & E but A & E decided to agree with GLADD and suspend Robertson.

GLADD supports the gay agenda but not the heterosexual agenda. Some may conclude that GLADD’s actions and A & E’s actions violatesdTitle 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights act which prohibits discrimination based on sex.  For now they succeeded in harming Robertson by their actions even though Robertson did nothing that was anti-gay. Even if Robertson’s ideas are anti-gay, so long as he doe nothing to harm gays or to damage them he is entitled to speak against them. Same for GLADD. They are entitled to speak against Robertson but they went too far demanding he be taken off Duck Dynasty and they will pay a price for what is their pyrrhic victory.

 

Hits: 82