Phil Robertson also known as the duck commander is owner of his own line of duck calls and is the star of AMC's most highly rated show "Duck Dynasty". The show centers around the Robertson family and their conservative, god-fearing, redneck hijinks. After a interview with GQ Phil said things that conservative, god-fearing, rednecks say. AMC attempting to do damage control tried to suspend him from the rest of the taping of the remaining season. To the complete surprise of the channels expectations, the outrage of Phil's comments were dwarfed by the support that he received for making said comments. This left a lot of people who were angry with the Duck Commander surprised that their opinion doesn't hold the majority. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with him it is important that people understand the freedom of speech that we have is more important.
For those who are pro-gay, they see the freedom of speech side of the argument as a non-issue. Not that they don't believe in the concept as they understand it, but they think that as long as the government isn't stopping speech it isn't censorship. While indeed they are technically correct, the use of the "boycott" that our culture uses is being abused. If you we a fan of Duck Dynasty and watched every episode, and then after hearing Phil comments decided to not to watch the show anymore that is well within your right. But when groups that represent the LGBT community who never watched the show and never were the intended audience of the show try and keep Robertson fired, they are abusing the very system that keep them repressed and in the corners of society. Ever wonder why coming out of the closet seemed to be a bigger deal back then than it does now? Back then coming out was a possible career suicide for people in pop culture. A lot of conservative groups centered around "protecting the children" and Christian groups that determined the media and careers of people who they never watched and were not performing for them. Power has a way of shifting from each political side to the other and by setting the standard that as long as your viewpoint is unpopular by the majority of people you can be silenced or pressured to be fired, it will always come back to bite them in the ass when you lose that power.
I feel it is necessary to state that I am actually pro-gay marriage myself, as not to seem that I am only defending Phil because I agree with him. But I have to admit that some years back I would have actually agreed with Robertson. Back then I wasn't practically religious, I just couldn't have cared less. The idea of someone not being able to do something because of people like me didn't seem to matter because it didn't directly adversely affect me. Through interactions in real life and on the internet people would confront and berate me. This did nothing to sway me to their side but made me entrench in my own. After doing some growing up of my own and real discussions and lectures that spent more time presenting their side of view than grandstanding and hushing me, a change of mind occurred. When I was part of a dialogue rather at the end of tirade, I had to confront my own preconceived notions. I say all of this to show that the efforts of those who are part of or support the LGBT are counterintuitive. After this whole ordeal, what do you think the opinions of him and those with them are now? Probably no different of than before. When you try to silence someone you close of dialogue and exchange of ideas. You give yourself and your viewpoint no hope. In all, you are either for the freedom of expression and speech or you are not. Not just when it is convenient for you.
At the risk of sounding extremely pretentious I feel like ending with a Dr. King quote. It's more on the idea of violence but I feel like it has applications here.
"Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. It is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys a community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends by defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers."
No comments:
Post a Comment