So Bill Cosby is alleged to sexually assault dozens of women... and the Cosby Show is still on. Nothing wrong with that at all apparently. It is not like Dukes of Hazard was Blazing Saddles or anything, it was a good wholesome family show. I didn't grow up watching it but I have seen several episodes.
As have been done already, TV Land...wait for it...took the Cosby Show off of its own volition already. Kinda how it is doing for...wait for it...The Dukes of Hazard.
Again, FreeMarket knows best. Until it doesn't.
They may or may not have had talks from higher ups, but saying that they didn't have any outside pressure to remove the show is silly. They felt the pressure because of all this talk about the flag. Perhaps no group, organization or whatever approached them to take it down, but they felt pressure. As did Apple to remove Civil War games. The public's opinion matters, too much sometimes.
Do you have stats to back up your opinion that all southern racist have the Confederate flag? No you don't, stop counting your opinion as fact.
First off, again, TV Land is choosing to take off the air a show that it doesn't have to air for you, your family, or the POTUS, if it doesn't want to. It decided that it prefers $, than airing some show that no one gives a shit about. You can get enraged that TV Land has taken away your right to watch The Dukes of Hazard, but you need to get it clear in your head that:
1. You don't have a right to watch a TV Show on cable
2. Libruls haven't stormed the TV Land studios with guillotines and IRS/Agenda21 agents to demand the immediate removal of some TV show no one gives a shit about.
While I feel like people should already know this, I'll go ahead and put it out there. Businesses sometimes make decisions that upset people, if they feel they'll make more money because of it.
TV Land made the decision because TV Land cares more about money than the American Swastika. Just like Amazon, Walmart, ad nauseum.
FreeMarket knows best. Until it doesn't, strikes again!
LOL liberals are funny. They are against censorship and business having the right to serve as long as its one of their 'protected' classes. Everyone they disagree with, well in a liberals world good riddance, burn those free thinkers at the stake.
Do you huff gasoline before posting?
Libruls are against businesses that have licenses to serve the public refusing to serve select members of the public. Know who else sides with libruls on this? Well, the US Constitution, the Supreme Court, The US Congress, and businesses that aren't batshit insane who know that any dollar is a good dollar.
That you find yourself on the other side of the above list in a thread designed to let you be OUTRAGED over the American Swastika isn't a surprise at all. So, keep on keepin' on!
I don't care about that flag at all.
I find it odd that hypocrisy quite telling. And the questions you refused to answer yes/no to.
A business is not allowed to not sell a cake to a gay wedding couple. (free market bad)
but a business is allowed to not air a tv show. (free market good)
so which is it.
This has been explained thousands of times, so you're either intentionally looking away every time it is explained, or you're so engulfed in the bubble that the answer looks Chinese to you through the bubble.
If you are a business open to the public, it means that you serve the public. You don't get to decide that you're not going to serve to white thugs if you open yourself up to the public. Period. Congress, the USSC, and the Constitution make this clear.
Example: an icecream shop cannot refuse to serve icecream to a white thug. Perhaps it has stipulations that everyone must satisfy (shoes, shirt, can't be wielding a flamethrower, etc) but as long as any member of the public meets the general guidelines, you're allowed to walk into that g-d icecream shop and get you some icecream. Thank Congress, the USSC, and the US Constitution.
If you are a business open to the public, it means that you serve the public. That said, if your business makes a decision to not provide some service/product, it is in no way censorship or banning that service/product.
Example: The same g-d icecream shop. The shop decides that because KlippityKlap the Clown endorsed vanilla bean icecream on TV, right before masturbating to unicorn porn, that it will no longer serve vanilla bean icecream at all in its icecream shops.
In no way, whatsoever, is that business censoring vanilla bean icecream. They are not banning vanilla bean icecream. And it certainly isn't violating anyone's rights to get vanilla bean icecream.
So, you can either read that example and
finally understand the explanation that has been pointed out thousands of times over the past 40+ years, or you can continue to ignore it because OUTRAGE! It's all up to you.