And there's nothing wrong with that. It's A&E's network, after all.
Of course. But that mentality's probably going to hurt them in the long run. Intolerance for certain opinions seems to
exclude in its effort to
include--or at least create an ironic juxtaposition in their attempt to project an image of "inclusiveness."
They're not even leaving room for argument. They're censoring.
Last I checked, the phrase "open discussion" carried more positive connotations than the term "censorship." A&E really has to dig deep into GLAAD's bag of victocratic knee-jerks and tolerance lectures to compensate for the move.
Anyway, I don't think A&E did anything wrong here.
I don't think anyone here said they did wrong; entrepreneurs have a right to run their businesses however they like. Whatever decision they make, however, is not conducive to a productive business model--or an affirmative social policy for that matter.
They gave these guys a show, predicting its success based on hits like Honey Boo Boo, and suspended that show when the star said something that stood to alienate a large part of that show's fanbase.
Your parallels have cannibalized each other. Honey Boo Boo is, in and of itself, an offensive show that glorifies superficial and self-destructive lifestyles. By your logic, they would have taken that down a long time ago since it risks alienation.
GLAAD certainly houses people fanatical enough to campaign against any show containing a character--who isn't labeled as evil--that dissents with their morality. But there are two things to keep in mind: a) people, when afforded the chance, tend to allow others to keep their own opinions (despite what social liberals would have you believe), and b) it is not, by any means, logical to assume that their propaganda could reach--much less affect--the audience of Duck Dynasty--which is exactly why they'd go through the network itself for a hit job (no different than how they use the judiciary to override democratic measures against their preferred social policies).
