Backwoods Hillbilly Removed From Show About Backwoods Hillbillies For Being A Backwoods Hillbilly.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah... at this point, there is no public record of the contract... However, multiple legal experts have said that, if Robertson’s contract contained a morals clause — as is often the case with on-air talent — than the reality TV star has little in the way of legal recourse.

I'd like to see a morals clause that includes some biblical quotations and not others. If in fact it's there. If they left one off, well, then, A+E has opened themselves up to a nice little lawsuit for breach of contract.

Again... expert media lawyers say "Often, such morals clauses note that, if talents speaks or acts in a way that insults or denigrates people, the producer reserves the right to suspend or terminate that talent.

Does it specifically bar citations of the bible? If not, I can see Pat Robertson arguing for 'bait and switch'. You can't require that someone do something as part of their job and then turn around and suspend them for doing such. He's getting paid in a reality show, and part of that includes public expression of his faith.

And typically, defining such language or actions is left to the discretion of the studio — basically, “if we say it is so, it is.” Tough to mount a legal argument against that.

You can't require someone to do something and then bar them from doing so. If A+E signed off on the interview, then tough noogies for A+E.

BS... he was suspended AFTER the uproar over the release of the interview. The attention was already there.

And again - this requires A+E to demonstrate that harm was done to the brand by Pat Robertson. Is there any evidence for this? If anything, A+E has done more harm to themselves. It's all self-inflicted. The shareholders would have cause to fire the board for losing money.

So IT COULDN'T RECEIVE MEDIA attention until it was released just a week ago.

Did A+E sign off on the interview after seeing the contents? You're telling me they would let Pat be interviewed and not review it beforehand? They had a chance - back in October to review it. I've done interviews, and yes, sometimes you get juicy ones that get squashed. You have to get permission from the person and their employer for it to see the light of day. No employer permission, it gets trashed.

From what I can see, A+E signed off on it, and are using it as an excuse to suspend him after some of their staff complained. They were ok with the interview prior to this.

And what of the possibility of arguing religious discrimination? While it’s true that Robertson’s anti-gay comments were couched in the context of Robertson’s religious beliefs, Volokh doesn’t see that as a likely success.

I know other legal experts who have come to different conclusions, some of them who are engaged in litigation at present concerning free speech issues. Again - he's got a case here for religious discrimination given the citation of 1 Corinthians 9.

Entertainment attorney Neville Johnson also noted that talent agreements generally tend to favor the networks. “If you see these talent agreements, they basically say they can do everything except torture you,” Johnson said.

Given prior knowledge of the content of the interview and the fact that A+E signed off on it prior to it's release by GQ, I can't see how they have a leg to stand on. If they argue he was suspended because of complaints from other A+E staff then they've filed for wrongful dismissal as the reasons given do not match up with the reasons he was terminated. They've decided, rightly or wrongly, to fight this case over Robertson's religious faith.

[Ming]

I'd like to see a morals clause that includes some biblical quotations and not others. If in fact it's there. If they left one off, well, then, A+E has opened themselves up to a nice little lawsuit for breach of contract.

You know nothing... A morals clause is pretty open ended, I will bet you whatever you want that A&E will NEVER LOSE a breach of contract lawsuit over this.
COME ON, PUT UP OR ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG.

Does it specifically bar citations of the bible? If not, I can see Pat Robertson arguing for 'bait and switch'. You can't require that someone do something as part of their job and then turn around and suspend them for doing such. He's getting paid in a reality show, and part of that includes public expression of his faith.

It doesn't have too... He's getting nailed for his anti gay comments, not for being religious.

And again - this requires A+E to demonstrate that harm was done to the brand by Pat Robertson. Is there any evidence for this? If anything, A+E has done more harm to themselves. It's all self-inflicted. The shareholders would have cause to fire the board for losing money.

A&E doesn't have to demonstrate anything... That's the thing with MOST STANDARD MORALS CLAUSES.
Too bad for Robertson. He's the one that self-inflicted.

I know other legal experts who have come to different conclusions, some of them who are engaged in litigation at present concerning free speech issues. Again - he's got a case here for religious discrimination given the citation of 1 Corinthians 9.

Again... you want to make a Bet?
You will lose.

Given prior knowledge of the content of the interview and the fact that A+E signed off on it prior to it's release by GQ, I can't see how they have a leg to stand on. If they argue he was suspended because of complaints from other A+E staff then they've filed for wrongful dismissal as the reasons given do not match up with the reasons he was terminated. They've decided, rightly or wrongly, to fight this case over Robertson's religious faith.

Assuming you are correct that they did have prior knowledge and that they signed off on it (facts not yet in evidence, just like that actual contract)
It still doesn't make any difference if there was a standard morals clause.
Again, they aren't nailing him for being religious, just for making anti gay comments. Something they have the right to do under standard clauses.

It happens all the time in the media world where standard morals clauses are involved, and NOBODY has won a lawsuit yet.


SO, you want to bet?

[Aeson]

The reasons for Poly's decline have next to nothing to do with Ben. The split with WPC had nothing to do with Ben. Civ V being underwhelming had nothing to do with Ben. The site being hacked and down often had nothing to do with Ben. The lack of moderator activity and lax rules have nothing to do with Ben. Losing links (and thus Google rankings) had nothing to do with Ben.

There may be a few specific individuals who don't post as often in the OT or sports subforum because of Ben, but the OT isn't important to a gaming site, and driving people away is held as something of a badge of honor here anyways. (I don't think Ben is winning that race either.)

[Aeson]

The reasons for Poly's decline have next to nothing to do with Ben. The split with WPC had nothing to do with Ben. Civ V being underwhelming had nothing to do with Ben. The site being hacked and down often had nothing to do with Ben. The lack of moderator activity and lax rules have nothing to do with Ben. Losing links (and thus Google rankings) had nothing to do with Ben.

There may be a few specific individuals who don't post as often in the OT or sports subforum because of Ben, but the OT isn't important to a gaming site, and driving people away is held as something of a badge of honor here anyways. (I don't think Ben is winning that race either.)

[Ming]

The reason for Poly's decline happened in it's "mid-life" when they lost track of the real target.

The owner's at the time didn't fix all the problems with uploads, and did a miserable job of supporting the mod community. The interface was cluncky, the search features sucked, and they didn't address the problems.

Many people moved to CFC and the rest is history. Poly had a huge lead over CFC, and they simply blew it and let it fade away through lack of action. And it has been all downhill since then.

[Dinner]

Amen. Poly is the Oldsmobile of the Civ Fan community. Olds was once really popular, as recently as 1982 they were making the best selling car in America, but the brand got neglected by its owner, management made some bad calls, execution was spotty, and so the company went into steep decline and eventually had to close its doors. The only question is how long poly can hold on and judging by how Plomp has said he wants to jump ship it probably won't be too long.

[Berzerker]

bummer, we got a good sports forum

[kentonio]

If CFC is being hacked, surely this wouldbe a good moment to strike and begin to recapture the civ fan base.

[Berzerker]

hell yeah, got me posting at Poly more

[Guynemer]

You know nothing... A morals clause is pretty open ended, I will bet you whatever you want that A&E will NEVER LOSE a breach of contract lawsuit over this.
COME ON, PUT UP OR ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG.

HE WILL NEVER ADMIT THAT HE IS WRONG
HE HAS NEVER ADMITTED THAT HE IS WRONG
IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW BIG OR SMALL THE ISSUE
STOP ARGUING WITH HIM
STOP QUOTING HIM
EVERY TIME YOU QUOTE HIM, A BABY OTTER DIES IN AGONY

[Ben Kenobi]

The reasons for Poly's decline have next to nothing to do with Ben.

The fact that I'm so prominent here is evidence of it's decline. I joined back in 2003, and was mostly into the democracy games, and secession games. Ming's right about it - they had a lead vs CFC, but that was gone before I even signed up. I'm not one of the old ones who was here from the beginning. I'm actually (like Snoopy), one of the latecomers who came in after the heyday of the site.

The split with WPC had nothing to do with Ben.

Yep. I actually stood on the side of staying with Poly. I wasn't involved with Dale at all, or with Solver, etc. My involvement with that was exactly nil.

Civ V being underwhelming had nothing to do with Ben.

Again - I had nothing good to say about the changes. Civ is not Panzer General.

The site being hacked and down often had nothing to do with Ben.

Yep. Not one of the technical folks.

The lack of moderator activity and lax rules have nothing to do with Ben.

Before my time. Poly's always been this way.

Losing links (and thus Google rankings) had nothing to do with Ben.

I'm just an OT poster who posts occasionally in sports to play fantasy games with Polytubbies. I don't think I've actually posted anything civ related since the succession games shut down. That would be when? When I still lived in Vancouver? So 2004, early 2005. That's coming up on 10 years now.

There may be a few specific individuals who don't post as often in the OT or sports subforum because of Ben, but the OT isn't important to a gaming site, and driving people away is held as something of a badge of honor here anyways. (I don't think Ben is winning that race either.)

A healthy site would have the Ontopic predominate. It doesn't and it hasn't for a long, long time here. Again, I got my Emperor status when on-topic only counted. I was the president of the Civ2 Demo game and served and played plenty of democracy games. Now we don't even have the old badges since the upgrade.

[Ben Kenobi]

You know nothing... A morals clause is pretty open ended, I will bet you whatever you want that A&E will NEVER LOSE a breach of contract lawsuit over this.
COME ON, PUT UP OR ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG.

I know people who have won cases that were eventually overturned after losing them and then winning on appeal.

It doesn't have too... He's getting nailed for his anti gay comments, not for being religious.

How does one parse the divide between religion and anti-gay when the comments are part of his religion and he quotes the bible? I can't see it. Can't be done.

Too bad for Robertson. He's the one that self-inflicted.

Self-inflicted what? He's the big, big winner here. Worst case, A+E drops them, they move to another network. Now he's a household name.

Again... you want to make a Bet?
You will lose.

On what? That the ruling will be overturned eventually on appeal? As it has in previous cases? No bet. I'm doubtful this goes to litigation as there's nothing to be gained by Robertson. He'll just walk. I'm just saying, if it were to be taken to litigation - Robertson would win. I strongly doubt this will happen. Most likely option is the Robertson's walk and there's no litigation whatsoever. Second most likely is that A+E caves and the Robertson's come back.

Assuming you are correct that they did have prior knowledge and that they signed off on it (facts not yet in evidence, just like that actual contract)
It still doesn't make any difference if there was a standard morals clause.

From the standpoint of breach of contract it's a significant change. A+E didn't have to approve of the interview. They could have shut it down, as I doubt Phil would have conducted the interview without permission. I haven't seen A+E suggest anything that the interview was given without their permission. I could see them suspending them if he had - but that's not their argument. They are arguing content is justification for suspension. Which opens up a giant legal can of worms, given that Phil's getting paid partly, to express his religion in public. I don't see how you can argue that 'sanitizing religion is ok', that you can only express parts of your religion and not others.

This case would have significant consequences if it were taken to litigation. However, I doubt that this will happen.

It happens all the time in the media world where standard morals clauses are involved, and NOBODY has won a lawsuit yet.

People have been sued under Section 13 in Canada - and eventually the folks charged under section 13 for 'hate crimes', and dismissed, have eventually been reinstated or had the bar on their employment rescinded. But it took years. I know some of these folks.

[Dr Strangelove]

HE WILL NEVER ADMIT THAT HE IS WRONG
EVERY TIME YOU QUOTE HIM, A BABY OTTER DIES IN AGONY

Oh God, No! Please not that! I promise I'll never do it again just please, Please, PLEASE spare the baby Otters.

[Dr Strangelove]

I hope he does win. A&E used to be a decent channel before they stooped to offering trash like this and the midget shows and the octuplet shows. Circuses are culture. Circus freak shows are not.

[Uncle Sparky]

STOP QUOTING HIM
EVERY TIME YOU QUOTE HIM, A BABY OTTER DIES IN AGONY

Ben was Canadian. A baby seal dies when you quote him, not an otter...



...and this makes Pamela Anderson mad.