The Duck Dynasty Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Free Speech

The creator of this image doesn't get it.

So this whole Duck Dynasty/A&E thing. I've been seeing a lot of comments in the blogosphere/Twittersphere, and petitions being passed around on Facebook, and one thing seems clear: Too many Americans have no idea what the First Amendment does and doesn't do.

Robertson has all the rights in the world to believe and say what he wants about LGBT folks. Nobody can take that right away from him. However, his employer, A&E, has no obligation whatsoever to pay him for making comments which they feel are not aligned with their values. They are in no way compelled to continue to provide a forum for a guy who has offended a significant number of their viewers.

I imagine if an employee of Fox News (or any other network) made comments on or off the air that equated Christians with swine, that individual would be suspended. And I imagine that the same people who are backing Robertson and boycotting A&E, would applaud the suspension of this employee.  And if he were to remain, I assume they would boycott the Network.

You have the right to say whatever crazy, hurtful, or morally dubious thing you want (short of hate speech, which is not protected).  You don't, however, have the right to keep your TV job after you say it.

The Chick-fil-A Flap Is Not Really About Free Speech

I've been seeing loads of commentary on the Chick-fil-A gay marriage flap that implies this is a debate about free speech. There have been numerous Facebook posts, letters to the editor, and blog posts about how those who are boycotting Chick-fil-A are hypocrites for defending the speech of liberal figures but punishing CEO Dan Cathy for expressing his opinions.

A recent letter in USA Today crystallizes the sentiment coming from this camp:

It seems as if people on the left don't approve of free speech unless it is in line with their beliefs. They call for boycotts of companies that espouse opinions other than their own. This has got to stop. This is the United States of America, where everyone has the right to free speech.

I disagree with comments of Bill Maher, but I don't harass or boycott HBO. Maher has the right to make any statement he wants without the country launching a concerted effort to destroy him, and so does the president of Chick-fil-A.

Stifling free speech with boycotts is extremely dangerous.

These folks seem to be completely missing the point.

This is not really about free speech. Nobody is saying that CEO Dan Cathy shouldn't be allowed to voice his personal views or beliefs. Nobody is saying that companies should never operate on principles that are important to its founders.

It's not what Dan Cathy says that is so troublesome here (although it is disheartening and disappointing to those who support equality). If Dan Cathy voiced his support for Mitt Romney, I don't believe that voicing this would result in liberals organizing a national boycott.

What is the most troubling about Chick-fil-A, and what most pro-Chick-fil-a/pro-family values folks seem to be missing, is that Dan Cathy and his corporation funnel millions of dollars into multiple discredited propaganda-spewing anti-LGBT organizations, including some that have been designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

There is a huge difference between supporting a company that doesn't share your personal political views and supporting a company that actively supports hate groups.

One of these groups is the Family Research Council. Here's a sample of some of the FRC's hateful comments:

“Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.”
— Robert Knight, FRC director of cultural studies, and Frank York, 1999

“One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets' of a new sexual order.”
-1999 FRC pamphlet, Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex with Boys.

“[T]he evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners.”
— Timothy Dailey, senior research fellow, “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse,” 2002

Despite that fact that 82% of child sex abuse is committed by heterosexual men, the FRC (and others, to be sure) continues to perpetuate blatantly false correlations between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Chick-fil-A also funnels money into Exodus International, the infamous "ex-gay" ministry. Exodus is described as "a non-profit, interdenominational "ex-gay" Christian organization that seeks to limit bisexual and homosexual desires." The consensus among the world's major scientific and medical communities is that "being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment." In addition, Exodus International's founder, Alan Chambers, recently addressed a Gay Christian Network audience, stating that "99.9% of conversion therapy participants do not experience any change to their sexuality." He then apologized for the previous Exodus slogan "Change Is Possible."

The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) has stated that "ex-gay" therapy organizations and ministries "lack medical justification" and "represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people."

Quite simply, "Ex-gay" therapy doesn't work, it's harmful, and Chick-fil-A actively supports it.

There are many other troublesome details about Chick-fil-A's policies and their involvement with anti-LGBT groups of which the general public is unaware.

The vocal reaction to Chick-fil-A's stances on gay marriage is not simply based on a difference of beliefs, it is a visceral reaction to the realization that Chick-fil-A actively supports organizations that do great harm to human beings.

If the CEO of Wendy's stated today that he believes African Americans to be inferior, and if we learned that Wendy's donates millions to the Ku Klux Klan each year, the uproar and calls for boycotts would not be attacks on "free speech." This would not simply be a company that has "different beliefs." This would be a company that actively supports a hate group and which endorses discrimination and the intimidation of individuals based on their natural traits. To patronize Wendy's would be to indirectly endorse and support such discrimination. To choose to stop patronizing Wendy's would be to divert money away from their cause.

Of course, if we investigated every company we support, we would undoubtedly learn a great deal that might change the way we spend our money.  We know that Apple has issues in their treatment of foreign labor workers. We know that Target has supported some anti-gay candidates. We can't be expected to be aware of every stance or practice of every corporation we patronize. However, upon learning about a particular company's unsavory practice or stance, we can make a conscious decision right then and there about whether or not we want to continue supporting that company. If anything, this particular instance should encourage all of us to learn more about the corporations we support.

This is a free country and capitalism works well when we vote with our pocketbooks. Voicing disappointment in a business owner's politics is not stifling to free speech. It is the exercising of free speech. Let the free market decide whether a business succeeds or fails based on its practices.

Let's get one thing clear. This is not about stifling free speech. This is about consumers taking a stand against discrimination. This is about a society voicing its disapproval of a company that supports practices which have been deemed harmful by the world's scientific and medical communities. This is about looking out for one another.

Norwegian Black Metal Band 'Taake' Up For Prestigious Music Prize, Despite Anti-Islamic Lyrics

Heavy metal, especially black metal, has always relied heavily on shock value. Throughout the history of metal, bands have looked for new ways to outdo one another.

Taake

In the 80's, many metal bands found their sweet spot in the occult. Taking a cue from Black Sabbath, bands like Venom, Mercyful Fate, and Mayhem took great care in scaring the bejesus out of parents, who often found pentagrams and upside down crosses on their teenage kids' notebooks.

For many years, black metal has been characterized in part by anti-Christian imagery and lyrics. Raging against organized religion has provided a great deal of fuel to black metal bands around the globe.

While there have certainly been some serious implications to the anti-Christian posturing of black metal bands, such as the notorious 1990s Norwegian church burnings, it has mostly been posturing, and nothing more. Shock value.

Where do you go after church burnings? How can you ratchet up the shock value from there?

Take the Norwegian black metal band Taake, who is currently up for the Spelleman Prize, Norway's top music prize (the equivalent of a US Grammy award). Taake has recently ventured into other anti-religious lyrical territories, specifically attacks against Islam.

Via Al Arabiya:

The Norwegian band ‘Taake’ has recently been nominated for a prestigious Norwegian music for best heavy metal band despite lyrics in the album being anti-Islamic.

The Spellemann award is likened to the American Grammy award or the British Brit award in the Scandinavian country’s music industry.

But critics argue that lyrics in their new album’s song ‘Orkan’ (Hurricane) are xenophobic as they include the phrase “To hell with Muhammad and the Mohammedans” and their “unforgivable customs”, whilst the song ends “Norway will awaken”.

Their nomination has sparked outrage among many listeners, claiming the band has gone too far.

Front and back of Taake's 'Anti Islam' t-shirt

Scandanavia has recently had tense relations with the Islamic world, including the infamous Muhammad cartoon controversy the 2010 Stockholm bombing, and the 2011 Norway attacks. Certainly, if a band wanted to ratchet up the shock value, anti-Islam sentiment would seem to be a natural progression for a band like Taake.

On the nominated album 'Noregs Vaapen,' singer Ørjan Stedjeberg refers to Muslims' "unforgivable customs" and calls for a new "kingdom" to "shine through [the] bad years, shame and Christian times".

Taake "do not encourage either violence or racism", Stedjeberg said. "Our view...is that it is shameful to adhere to Christianity or Islam...Taake has never been a political band, and we do not encourage either violence or racism," he said.

Stedjeberg says Taake is an equal-opportunity offender. The band is not anti-Islam, they're anti-religion.

“Our view, in the name of freedom of expression, is that it is shameful to adhere to Christianity or Islam. Incidentally, Christianity is mentioned in the same lyrics, but that doesn’t seem to have been given any emphasis,” he wrote.