Dynasty Rules

As Kurt Sutter, creator of Sons of Anarchy, aptly put it, “If you press a network for big money like you did, you are subject to the rules of where that big money comes from.” Phil Robertson, patriarch of the mind-numbing megahit Duck Dynasty on A&E, apparently did not get that memo. In a recent interview with GQ, Robertson called homosexuality sinful, and lumped homosexuals in with drunkenness, bestiality, prostitutes, and criminals. He went on to ridicule gays in thinly veiled ways that only a true backwoodsman could do, by saying things like, “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus…But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.” Oh, and he goes on to criticize the Japanese for losing World War II because they didn’t have Jesus, and he decided to take part in revisionist history when he said that “pre-entitlement” black people were actually very happy in the pre-civil rights south. What a gem of a guy. Of course, Phil can say whatever he wants. These are his opinions, and while some of them are flat-out wrong, while others are ignorant and wholly insensitive, he can still say them. However, freedom of speech does not imply freedom from responsibility of speech. And, when you work for a major network such as A&E, like it or not, you are indeed bound by the standards of that network. You represent them, on and off the air. Should you choose to take your homophobic, racist, slanderous, scientifically wrong beliefs public, you should be well aware that the chance of repercussion is very real—both in the public eye and from the network itself. Phil found this out the hard way when A&E suspended him indefinitely—a polarizing move for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was why he was suspended at all for simply stating his beliefs. This is the part that gets me. I understand when homophobes or racists rush to his defense. Stupid begets stupid. This has, and always will happen. But logical, sound-minded people that are attempting to cover themselves in the constitution and claim freedom of speech is some immunity clause, both public and private, are simply kidding themselves. The Robertson clan themselves released a statement not condemning anything Phil said, but rather informing us he was placed on hiatus for “expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right.” Anyone who has ever worked a day in his or her life understands that companies have rules, and these rules often supersede the ones found in faith and daily life. Duck Dynasty is an incredibly popular show, but make no mistake, these people aren’t doing it for free. They get paid a king’s ransom (a reported $200,000 per episode for the family), and as such are expected to comport themselves to the standards set by A&E—filming or otherwise. Those who actually believe that no one should ever be subject to disciplinary actions for expression of beliefs are deluding themselves, and in a way, contradicting their own claims. If we lived in that world, A&E would be subject to the whims of the Robertsons each week. They could turn their show into a thirty-minute anti-gay sermon, and A&E would have no recourse. Executives would simply have to shrug their shoulders and say, “Well, you know, free speech.” Only we don’t live in that world. In this world, there’s a stark duality regarding the word “right” when it comes to certain freedoms. In one sense, there’s the inalienable right that we feel covers every human anywhere—which is a belief, and not protected by all forms of government. The other right is a judicial claim, set up by the legal system in government to protect its citizens. The problem arises when people, such as the Robertsons, believe the latter is the one being violated. This isn’t true. Phil said what he said, and the government will not come down on him. But don’t mistake protection from prosecution from other forms of potential punishment. The very constitution the Robertsons hide behind doesn’t preclude what A&E did as a viable option. To come down on the network for infringing on a misguided belief of a constitutional right without acknowledging the network’s rights regarding their own employees under contract is either willful ignorance or outright misinformation. And to the people condemning those calling for Phil Robertson to be fired, I ask, is that not also intruding on their own freedom of speech? Do they not have the right to express themselves regarding the incident? But hypocritical proponents of “free speech,” fear not. The network’s decision to suspend Phil instead of terminate him speaks volumes in and of itself, and perhaps more to the power of ratings and money than to the ethical morals it asserts to uphold. This should give hope to fans of the show everywhere that their racist, homophobe star will one day return. And I suspect he will. I also suspect that when the show returns, its ratings will most likely increase, and the only lesson any of us will learn is that controversy sells. What will be lost in the mire is the bigger, more important lesson: Free speech does not include freedom from responsibility of speech.

Oh, that, and Phil Robertson is a despicable person.