Somebody at a network, still kind of upset over that entire Duck Dynasty thing:
“Does this now mean stars can say whatever offensive things they want under the guise of freedom of speech, without repercussion?”
If they’re saying it in their private capacity**? …Pretty much, yeah. In fact, they do it anyway: it’s just that the offensive things they say are directed at the Phil Robertson side of the political spectrum. What’s bugging the anonymous sources at the network is apparently that they now have to extend the privilege to those sorts of people, too.
Seriously, get back to me when somebody sits Harvey Weinstein down and explains to him that he can’t wildly and ineffectually threaten several million law-abiding potential movie goers simply because Harvey Weinstein is frightened of guns. Not that anybody ever will – and neither should they, either.
*The prime irony here is that a lot of people justified A&E’s original decision to suspend Phil Robertson as being a situation where the First Amendment didn’t apply. Which apparently means that it’s OK to ignore it, not really OK to tolerate it… maybe the media industry just hates the First? That’d explain a lot, actually.
**Saying stuff in their public capacity is another story.