Thread: Piers Morgan: The First Amendment Shouldn’t Apply to ‘Vile Bigots’ Like Phil Roberts

TownHall
Friday, December 20, 2013

Piers Morgan: The First Amendment Shouldn’t Apply to ‘Vile Bigots’ Like Phil Robertson




Deep constitutional thoughts from CNN's (soon-to-be former?) foreign anchor:

Katie, Mary Katharine and Ed have all weighed in on the Duck Dynasty flap that's dominated the political news cycle for the last 36 hours, so I won't recapitulate the particulars -- but Morgan's preening assertion is instructive.

He doesn't care for "assault rifles," so he thinks they should be banned for everyone else. He doesn't enjoy "vile bigotry," so his instinct is to strip constitutional protections from people whose words cross that line -- as defined by Piers Morgan, of course. Were Robertson's comments perhaps a bit crude? Sure.

Did rattling off a list of sins invite furious denunciations of "comparing" X with Y, and paint-by-numbers "outrage" (see GLAAD's borderline-unresponsive condemnation)? Obviously. If Robertson were, say, running for public office, his inelegant phrasing might have different implications. But he's a self-described "Bible-thumping" redneck speaking candidly about his beliefs -- and doing so, by the way, while stressing that it's not his role to judge anyone.

His follow-up statement on the contretemps was gracious. Are we at the stage where tolerance and kindness are insufficient? Have we crossed the threshold into the realm of enforced celebration? Enthusiastically embrace my values, or you're a vicious bigot, unworthy of free speech rights! Sorry, Piers, but that's not America. After enduring a torrent of Twitter criticism about his warped understanding of the entire notion of constitutional protections, Morgan backed off. A little:


Piers Morgan ✔ @piersmorgan Follow Calm down, everyone. I'm merely exercising my own 1st Amendment freedom of speech rights to say Phil Robertson's a racist bigot.
10:48 AM - 19 Dec 2013

That's not what he tweeted initially, but whatever. It's unclear what good 'ol Piers actually believes in this case. What is clear is that he desperately craves attention. Maybe that's what coming in a distant third-place, night after night, does to a man. I'll leave you with a few thoughts:


Guy Benson @guypbenson Follow By the way, fellow conservatives, our side's hands aren't clean in the pernicious BAN/FIRE/SUSPEND outrage wars either.
11:00 AM - 19 Dec 2013

Guy Benson @guypbenson Follow It's fine to forcefully object to things that one finds objectionable, but the "ban hammer" should be wielded sparingly in a free society.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybens...rtson-n1766069

NewsBusters
By Noel Sheppard | December 21, 2013 | 11:07

Charlie Daniels to Piers Morgan: 'You Wouldn't Last Five Minutes' in the Duck Dynasty Swamps

NewsBusters guest contributor Charlie Daniels has had enough of CNN's Piers Morgan attacking Americans he doesn't agree with.

After Morgan said about Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson via Twitter Thursday, "[T]he 1st Amendment shouldn't protect vile bigots," Daniels scolded the arrogant Brit Friday with a series of tweets that began, "Piers Morgan why don't you go back to England and straighten it out before you try to change the United States of America":


Charlie Daniels ✔ @CharlieDaniels Follow Piers Morgan why don't you go back to England and straighten it out before you try to change the United States of America Sooner the better

Charlie Daniels ✔ @CharlieDaniels Follow
If you had to go to war who would you want to watch your back Piers Morgan or Phil Robertson

Charlie Daniels ✔ @CharlieDaniels Follow
Piers Morgan you woudn't last fiveminutes in the swamps Phil Robertson hangs out it. Want to try it? I'll arrange it. Let me know

Charlie Daniels ✔ @CharlieDaniels
Piers Morgan you woudn't last fiveminutes in the swamps Phil Robertson hangs out it. Want to try it? I'll arrange it. Let me know

For his part, Morgan responded:



Piers Morgan ✔ @piersmorgan Follow Agreed. Don't do swamps. Nor bigotry. > RT @CharlieDaniels Piers Morgan you woudn't last fiveminutes in the swamps Phil Robertson hangs out.
9:45 PM - 20 Dec 2013


Charlie Daniels ✔ @CharlieDaniels If you had to go to war who would you want to watch your back Piers Morgan or Phil Robertson


Piers Morgan ✔ @piersmorgan Follow
Me... if you're gay. > RT @CharlieDaniels If you had to go to war who would you want to watch your back Piers Morgan or Phil Robertson
9:50 PM - 20 Dec 2013

Actually, I think a gay person would prefer to go to war with someone that believes in the second amendment and knows how to use guns NOT some America-hating Brit who wants everyone's guns taken away.
How about you?

(HT Twitchy)

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...tes-duck-dynas

Is 'Duck Dynasty' finished? 4 ways this ends


What now? The off-air Duck Dynasty saga this week has been far more fascinating than any episode of the hit cable series. Unbridled offensive comments. A bold network rebuke. A family pushing back. America’s oldest culture divide, the North and South, inflamed once again, taking to cable news networks and Twitter to argue rather than grabbing muskets. How will it all end? Here’s the four most likely possibilities.
Related 'Duck Dynasty' ignites culture war as boycott looms

1. Duck Dynasty continues without Phil: What seemed like the obvious outcome just a few days ago given A&E’s announcement that Phil Robertson is suspended “indefinitely” now seems the least likely given the family’s aggressive public counter move yesterday declaring support for the patriarch’s statements and saying the family “cannot imagine” a show without him.

For A&E, this must be frustrating, because excising Phil would solve most of their problems — boot off the troublemaker and chive on. But A&E may have made a mistake treating a family like a TV show cast, where you simply ditch one member for stepping out of line. Duck Dynasty may follow a scripted week-to-week narrative, but the family is real enough. A&E’s move to suspend the patriarch — seemingly righteous from a progressive network perspective compared to the usual waffling of major entertainment companies during ugly controversies — may have underestimated the show’s core message and fan appeal emphasizing the values of family and faith.

To the show’s fans, the network cast itself in the role of big corporate anti-Christian villain (which is frustrating for A&E Networks insiders since the company gambled on a 10-hour Bible mini-series this year on History). And without Phil Robertson, the series would be inherently a little awkward — having him conveniently out of sight cracks the fragile construction that this is a documentary-style show.

2. A&E cancels Duck Dynasty: Nobody wants this. Not the network, not the family, not the fans. Given the current two pieces of news — A&E wants the show without Phil; the Robertsons refuse — there appears to be no way out. But the Robertsons are not like Paula Deen, Martin Bashir, Alec Baldwin, Dog the Bounty Hunter or others who were kicked off a series after saying controversial statements.

Duck Dynasty is the most popular reality show on cable and could return bigger than ever in January (averaging 14.6 million viewers with DVR playback). Plus its success is not easily replicable. This isn’t a cooking show or a talk show where you just plug somebody else into a format. There are many blue collar and Louisiana-based reality TV shows out there, but Duck Dynasty‘s mega-success was a lightning strike that nobody could have predicted. If A&E must choose between swallowing its pride by letting Phil return or losing this huge hit, it’s tough to imagine the network letting Duck fly away.

3. Duck Dynasty goes to another network. The current fourth season, which returns Jan. 15, is basically done (9 out of 10 episodes shot). A&E has an option for at least another season, likely more. If the network and the Robertsons cannot resolve their differences, there’s a slim chance the family might eventually be able to take the show to another network, but that’s a thorny path, legally, if the Robertsons outright refuse to continue doing the show.

4. Duck Dynasty continues with Phil. Here’s one reason why this stand-off is so tough for A&E: The Robertsons are wealthy. They’re not dealing with Kate Gosselin or Honey Boo Boo or Snooki who might really need this paycheck. They’re in a public struggle with multi-millionaire businessmen.

You could argue A&E needs Duck Dynasty more than the Robertsons need A&E. What A&E could use is a face-saving way out of this, one that hopefully also won’t result in any more embarrassing Phil Robertson quotes popping up in the press.

So what’s most likely to happen is that A&E negotiates a return to normalcy after the holiday with the Robertsons agreeing to some kind of public concession. Maybe Phil remains on the show, but in a reduced role. Something. One thing you can bet on: A&E won’t send its Duck Dynasty cast into any magazine interviews anytime soon.

What do you think will happen?

'Duck Dynasty': How will this end?

Duck Dynasty continues with Phil

Duck Dynasty continues without Phil

A&E cancels Duck Dynasty

Duck Dynasty goes to another network

VoteView ResultsPolldaddy.com

http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/12/20/du...asty-finished/