Phil Robertson did not deserve to be suspended from Duck Dynasty.

Hello, and thank you for your response.This round will primarily be dedicated to deconstructing Pro's argument and displaying that suspension was justified by the circumstances. I'll offer a few independent points to support this argument:1. Freedom of Speech Essentially, Pro's only argument is that freedom of speech protects Phil in this case. However, this argument is hopelessly flawed and is based on an unwarranted extension of a federal limitation into the private sector. So rather than examining this debate from the viewpoint of an objective, impartial actor or a federal institution, it would be most prudent to examine this debate from the perspective of A&E. This point serves to establish A&E's right to suspend Phil over the controversy. A private outlet has every right to suspend or release employees if they feel that their words will damage viewership or product sales. All the first amendment protects you from is government censorship. Many stars have been fired or suspended for their comments, including Paula Deen, Alec Baldwin, Martin Bashir, Don Imus, The Dixie Chicks, Rush Limbaugh, etc [1]. This has been going on for quite some time...if it truly is a violation of their first amendment rights, we would expect to see a court case about it, but we don't because everyone who understands what the Constitution entails knows that rights aren't always absolute. But at this point, all that Pro has left is his misplaced reductio ad absurdum argument, extending this event to many other instances. 2. ImageNetworks are naturally concerned with their image. The image of a network is vital to maintaining viewership, and we must examine what image networks would most likely want to project. Recently, the gay rights movement has made many strides and far more people are sympathetic to their cause than, say, 10 years ago. Phil was essentially insinuating during his interview that homosexuals are grouped with people who have sex with animals as well as terrorists. It is not shocking that A&E wanted to repudiate these views right away. They hired Phil in the first place because, like all networks, they saw the potential for money to be made. But insofar as they have the power to get rid of Phil whenever he says something that may offend viewers, they used this power appropriately in this instance, as quick repudiation is often necessary to ensure that the network is not chastised for this debacle. Phil was just stating his views, and he had every right to do so, but nothing protected him from the adverse effects on his status as a member of the show. A&E is a private company, and their goal of maximizing profits fall in line with a quick repudiation of comments that group potential viewers with terrorists and people who have sex with animals.3. Sending a MessageWe now must examine what message A&E tried to send by suspending Phil. By quickly renouncing what can and will be viewed as very hateful speech, despite your own opinions on it, A&E is able to exemplify their openness and acceptance of all Americans, mitigating network backlash and relegating those lashing back to people angry about the Phil's suspension instead of people angry that they've been compared to terrorists as well as supporters of those marginalized peoples. It displays the networks desire to be friendly to all people, no matter their background. It also sends a message that networks will not stand for those who go on bigoted rants and marginalize groups of people, showing that the network is tough rather than lenient on bigoted speech. 4. Phil's ContractMany contracts have what is known as a "morals clause". This clause prevents someone from saying or doing certain things, because, after all, the contract is essentially the purchase of an on-air personality, and the contract can in fact dictate the way the personality is to behave to an extent if the personality wishes the contract to remain solvent. Why do you think few people in the past, such as the ones I mentioned above, sued for their suspensions or dismissals? Because morality clauses are rather ubiquitous when it comes to reality show personalities, and when they exist, nothing can be done about punishments incurred as a result of what one has said or done. " 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 [2]." So really, A&E may have been acting in accordance with Phil's contract when they suspended him. If this is true, Pro's argument is null. If it isn't, then the rest of my argument still stands, rendering Pro's argument entirely contingent upon this morals clause, which is likely to exist, making it rather speculative at best. Did A&E act as they were contractually obliged to do? Most Likely. Did A&E have the right to suspend Phil either way? Most definitely. Pro must contend with these arguments if he hopes to win the debate. His rather perfunctory analysis of what A&E has the right to do and what is doesn't no longer remains solvent, and he must either reconstruct his argument and refute my independent points or forfeit the debate.As for his list of other things that would be acceptable, we need only to subject each one to my analysis to test his claims. Would disagreeing with Obama, owning a book by Dawkins, talking about the Quran, quoting the Bible, or talking about abortion denigrate a specific group of people? NO! None of these things would be covered by a morals clause; they would have to be separately listed, most likely specifically mentioned as well. My opponent acts as though Phil Robertson was suspended because of the religious implications of what he said. But in reality, it is the marginalization and denigration of a specific group of people that got him suspended. It is this effect that would fall under a morals clause. And according to my second source [2], Eugene Volokh, professor at UCLA Law School, states that "It doesn’t sound like they were taking him off the show because they don’t like the fact that his message is religious; I think they don’t like the fact that his message is anti-gay And people of various religions and no religions, some of them are anti-gay. and I imagine if an atheist on an A&E show said things that A&E thought disapproved of homosexuality, they would deal with it the same way." Sorry if the grammar seems a bit off inside the quote, but you get the point. If, in those other instances, networks believed that their viewers would take great offense to such comments and that repudiation would actually help their image, then they have the right to take action. However, none of these acts fall under a morals clause, none of these acts denigrate a specific group of people rather than bolstering a specific group, and none of these examples actually prove whether or not Phil himself should have been suspended. They're mere red herrings used as unwarranted extensions that cannot be taken as true examples for the meaningful difference I've noted.So let's examine the resolution. Did Phil deserve to be suspended? Because the suspension was carried out by A&E and not the government or the people, we must examine the suspension through the eyes of A&E, and, as I've shown, A&E has the right to suspend him, they are likely obligated to do so, and, because a lack of action could mean plummeting ratings, they did what networks have been doing for decades. They repudiated opinions that they did not want to be associated with. Pro must contend with these notions if he is to have any hope of making a comeback in this debate.[1] http://entertainment.time.com...[2] http://www.thewrap.com...