Phil Robertson returns to A&E Duck Dynasty

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am sure he is shaking in his boots :roll: seriously bro .. he might just have the heebie jeebies.
 
Bebonang said:
Yep, he will be back in the Spring as part of his punishment from the A&E. So he will serve his time soon and then he will be on the show again.
Click to expand...
There is no punishment. He will be filming the show with the rest of the family on their regular schedule. A&E decided to not punish him, so he never missed any shows.

Also I noticed that he was giving his girlfriend the wedding or engagement ring to marry her. I don't read much….
Click to expand...
Phil doesn't have a girlfriend. He has a wife. He's been married to his wife since 1966.
 
Reba said:
There is no punishment. He will be filming the show with the rest of the family on their regular schedule. A&E decided to not punish him, so he never missed any shows.


Phil doesn't have a girlfriend. He has a wife. He's been married to his wife since 1966.
Click to expand...

You WATCH the show???? :eek3:
 
CrazyPaul said:
I don't care if he's back or not. His show still sucks.

Now he learned his lesson so he must watch his mouth from now on since he's an entertainer. If he doesn't watch his mouth, his show will go down. Know why? A&E is half-owned by Disney. That's his last chance….
Click to expand...
It would just mean that the family would move to another network. The Robertsons don't need A&E. The show won't "go down" because they have loyal viewers who will follow them.
 
Reba said:
Nah, too much real Charleston drama around here. BTW, I lived thru that same Hurricane Hugo that hit Charleston. We lived just north of Charleston in Goose Creek. A few days after it hit we drove down the South of Broad area and saw the devastation along the Battery.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have a friend who lived through Hugo as well. When you visit today, you don't see the original multicolored homes. I'm told there is much more of those down by Battery. I only saw a few when I visited.

It is an interesting read..
 
Steinhauer said:
Can Phil Robertson Sue GLAAD For Defamation? - Ricochet.com
Click to expand...

I don't think GLAAD's statement does fit as defamation and Ricochet is just blog website like Think Progress, Daily Kos, The Blaze, Drudge Report. It is just like Mikey Cyrus should sue media and CrazyPaul for defamation.

Phil Robertson has a lot of fans so GLAAD's action isn't going affect him, except for people who got upset so easily by racist or homophobic statement.
 
like i dont give a damn...the whole thing is stupid stupid, all of it, even the american myth of freedom duh
 
Foxrac said:
I don't think GLAAD's statement does fit as defamation and Ricochet is just blog website like Think Progress, Daily Kos, The Blaze, Drudge Report. It is just like Mikey Cyrus should sue media and CrazyPaul for defamation.

Phil Robertson has a lot of fans so GLAAD's action isn't going affect him, except for people who got upset so easily by racist or homophobic statement.
Click to expand...

If Duck Commander loses any revenue due to GLAAD's maliciously false accusation, or if Phil Robertson, or any member of his family is targeted for public ridicule, attack etc. then GLAAD needs to be held 100% responsible. A&E admitted to suspending Robertson due to pressure from GLAAD. They suspended him for utilizing his sole 1st amendment rights to freedom of religious expression.

GLAAD attempted to defame Robertson, intimidate him and cause undue financial burden. They need to be held accountable.
 
This is good news.

It was very premature for them to take him off in the first place for something he did that was a long time ago.
 
Steinhauer said:
If Duck Commander loses any revenue due to GLAAD's maliciously false accusation, or if Phil Robertson, or any member of his family is targeted for public ridicule, attack etc. then GLAAD needs to be held 100% responsible. A&E admitted to suspending Robertson due to pressure from GLAAD. They suspended him for utilizing his sole 1st amendment rights to freedom of religious expression.

GLAAD attempted to defame Robertson, intimidate him and cause undue financial burden. They need to be held accountable.
Click to expand...

It is very hard to win in the court if you try to sue someone for defamation, even if you have evidence from online, so the judge will say about doesn't fit defamation, or evidence doesn't fit the definition or GLAAD is free to criticize him, so judges are very strict. It is just like you have free to criticize Mikey Cyrus and should she sue us.

Like Reba say - just ignore GLAAD's statement and they will move on. There are many actors got criticized by organizations or media. If you want to become a singer and if organization doesn't like your sing, or your belief so you should just ignore or denounce the organization's claim. GLAAD found Phil Robertson's claim is offensive, also is HRC, NAACP so they have own belief. Some people don't think that claim is offensive, some think it is offensive.

I don't think that Phil Robertson will involve legal battle and his families are very brave, so he isn't cry babying nor desperate for help.
 
Foxrac said:
It is very hard to win in the court if you try to sue someone for defamation, even if you have evidence from online, so the judge will say about doesn't fit defamation, or evidence doesn't fit the definition or GLAAD is free to criticize him, so judges are very strict. It is just like you have free to criticize Mikey Cyrus and should she sue us.

Like Reba say - just ignore GLAAD's statement and they will move on. There are many actors got criticized by organizations or media. If you want to become a singer and if organization doesn't like your sing, or your belief so you should just ignore or denounce the organization's claim. GLAAD found Phil Robertson's claim is offensive, also is HRC, NAACP so they have own belief. Some people don't think that claim is offensive, some think it is offensive.

I don't think that Phil Robertson will involve legal battle and his families are very brave, so he isn't cry babying nor desperate for help.
Click to expand...

All that is required for defamation is that if the defamer lied to the public about the character of the person defamed in an attempt to harass.

That is what GLAAD did. They should apologize. their organization has no problem with pressuring apologies out of public figures, so they should understand the sentiment.
 
Steinhauer said:
All that is required for defamation is that if the defamer lied to the public about the character of the person defamed in an attempt to harass.

That is what GLAAD did. They should apologize. their organization has no problem with pressuring apologies out of public figures, so they should understand the sentiment.
Click to expand...
I think Phil would be hard pressed to prove any monetary damages since it seems the Robertsons came out ahead on this one. Their merchandise became more popular than ever.

Whether or not Phil is legally entitled to sue is secondary to the wisdom of NOT suing.
 
Steinhauer said:
All that is required for defamation is that if the defamer lied to the public about the character of the person defamed in an attempt to harass.

That is what GLAAD did. They should apologize. their organization has no problem with pressuring apologies out of public figures, so they should understand the sentiment.
Click to expand...

Well, I discussed with my friend who knows about lawyer. He said GLAAD's statement doesn't see as defamation because GLAAD criticized Phil Robertson's claim and found his claim is offensive, in their belief. If Phil wants to sue for defamation and they will likely to lose because it is very hard to win the case for defamation and judges will dismiss your case if they couldn't find your ground for defamation.

If GLAAD makes gross statement, such as say that Phil is member of Westboro Baptist Church and want publicly execute all gay people, so it does meet definition of defamation, known as libel because statement was untrue.

The court isn't Disney World and if you don't have strong ground so your case will dismissed, even if you think that you are defamed (slander or libel), but not to judges. I don't use court to resolve the dispute and it should reserved for last options if couldn't resolve with private parties and we follow the lawyers for recommendation.

If you think GLAAD defamed Phil Robertson so that's your decision to say. I don't think Phil Robertson will seeking lawsuit against media and I'm sure that Phil isn't stupid either. I doubt that GLAAD will issue an apology to someone who have anti-gay view or offend gay people, so the role of GLAAD is represent the gay people, just like HRC.
 
Foxrac said:
Well, I discussed with my friend who knows about lawyer. He said GLAAD's statement doesn't see as defamation because GLAAD criticized Phil Robertson's claim and found his claim is offensive, in their belief. If Phil wants to sue for defamation and they will likely to lose because it is very hard to win the case for defamation and judges will dismiss your case if they couldn't find your ground for defamation.

If GLAAD makes gross statement, such as say that Phil is member of Westboro Baptist Church and want publicly execute all gay people, so it does meet definition of defamation, known as libel because statement was untrue.

The court isn't Disney World and if you don't have strong ground so your case will dismissed, even if you think that you are defamed (slander or libel), but not to judges. I don't use court to resolve the dispute and it should reserved for last options if couldn't resolve with private parties and we follow the lawyers for recommendation.

If you think GLAAD defamed Phil Robertson so that's your decision to say. I don't think Phil Robertson will seeking lawsuit against media and I'm sure that Phil isn't stupid either. I doubt that GLAAD will issue an apology to someone who have anti-gay view or offend gay people, so the role of GLAAD is represent the gay people, just like HRC.
Click to expand...

here's the thing ... GLAAD is claiming, as truth, that Phil Robertson "praised Jim Crow Laws". They are also claiming that Phil Robertson compared homosexuals to terrorists.

He never did either of those things. Now, if GLAAD had caricatured Phil Robertson, that would be an entirely different ballgame, as it would not have been meant to be taken seriously. However, since they have maliciously lied about Phil Robertson, presented it as a fact to the public, and they, themselves, claim to be an alliance against defamation - then they need to be utterly destroyed as an organization. Just my opinion.

or, they can simply apologize to the public. What you will more than likely see over the next few days, is this growing sentiment of those standing by Phil, will be pressuring GLAAD in ways their organization never thought possible. GLAAD wants a culture war, so they will get a culture war.
 
Steinhauer said:
here's the thing ... GLAAD is claiming, as truth, that Phil Robertson "praised Jim Crow Laws". They are also claiming that Phil Robertson compared homosexuals to terrorists.

He never did either of those things. Now, if GLAAD had caricatured Phil Robertson, that would be an entirely different ballgame, as it would not have been meant to be taken seriously. However, since they have maliciously lied about Phil Robertson, presented it as a fact to the public, and they, themselves, claim to be an alliance against defamation - then they need to be utterly destroyed as an organization. Just my opinion.

or, they can simply apologize to the public. What you will more than likely see over the next few days, is this growing sentiment of those standing by Phil, will be pressuring GLAAD in ways their organization never thought possible. GLAAD wants a culture war, so they will get a culture war.
Click to expand...

I know GLAAD very well and they never issue an apology because GLAAD doesn't like anyone who are anti-gay or make offensive comment against gay people. GLAAD got money from gay people and anyone who support gay rights.

I'm member of HRC and only one LGBT organization that I joined because HRC is doing very good job, so GLAAD is so-so, not strong as HRC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top