« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Helen Thomas Exercises Freedom Of Speech

By: Bob Sordahl (Diary)  |  June 13th, 2010 at 01:35 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Free speech is only truly free, if it is contentious.  It needs to be defended most when it is most indefensible.  Regardless how much I may disagree, I do not want to silence others at the expense of liberty.  I want to hear from those with whom I differ.  Only then can I decide whether they are misinformed, stupid or dangerous and react appropriately.  Helen Thomas’ comments last month about the Jews and Palestine were inane and reprehensible.  They exposed her not as the grand old lady of the White House press corps, but rather as a bigoted journalistic half-wit who despite her age and experience knows nothing about history.  But should she lose her job as a result?

Thomas has covered every President since Eisenhower and really was a ground breaking female journalist.  But her recent anti-Semitic comments calling for the Jews to “get the hell out of Palestine” and go “home” to Germany and Poland were stupid and totally off base.  However those comments represent her opinion, which she is entitled to.  Now I can read or, more likely  ignore her journalism because I know that her reportage is colored by her loopy world view.

Many others have fallen victim to blurting out their true feelings.  Some have paid the price, and others have been rewarded with positions of power.  In all cases however, we have a better insight into what kind of people they really are because under our Constitution, they are allowed speak out.

Actor Sean Penn during an interview with Bill Maher, spoke glowingly of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez.  Penn’s diatribe included a wish that American journalists who dared call Chavez a dictator should be sent to prison.  It is interesting that while exercising his rights under the First Amendment, Penn advocates suspending the freedom of press, also guaranteed by that very same Amendment.

In a total loss of decorum and common sense, radio host Don Imus referred to the Rutgers University women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hos”.  Not only stupid, rude and boorish, but insensitive, mean-spirited and provocative.  Should he have been fired?  I don’t think so, but now I have one more reason not to tune in just like anyone else who does not appreciate such comments.

Rand Paul, winner of the GOP primary in Kentucky, expressed his belief that government should not force private businesses to abide by civil rights law.  Paul apparently believes that private property rights extend to ownership of a business, and feels the Government has no right to tell business owners who they must do business with.  Though I would never support discrimination, I don’t think Paul is that far off with his basic concept regarding Governmental meddling, and the importance of private property rights in our society.

President Obama’s Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein wrote: “There would be no tension with the establishment clause (of the 1st Amendment) if people with religious or other objections were forced to pay for that procedure (abortion). Indeed, taxpayers are often forced to pay for things –national defense, welfare, certain forms of art, and others – to which they have powerful moral and even religious objections.”  Mr. Sunstein apparently feels that using public money to end the life of a child in the womb, is no different than using it to buy a Picasso for his office.

Bill Ayers in a 1995 interview said,  “I am a radical, Leftist…  The ethics of communism still appeal to me.  I don’t like Lenin as much as the early Marx.”  In spite of his admitted involvement with the Weather Underground and domestic bombings, Ayers hasn’t had any trouble finding work, and interestingly hasn’t endured much criticism for his views.

One of this Country’s great strengths is the right to free speech, the right to speak your mind, the right to analyze and criticize.  All the great dictatorships and political failures of history have restricted that right.  Our current administration, and its FCC seek to do so.  We must resist attempts to control speech, no matter how distasteful or vile it may be.  No one has a Constitutional right to not be offended.  It is an extremely fine line between controlling speech and thought, and once we’ve relinquished freedom of the first, loss of the second most certainly will follow.

Originally posted on 06/13/2010 at ConservativeCompass.com

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Bill S

    Because WE also exercised OUR freedom of speech – the freedom to tell her bosses how we thought she was a hateful old bitty who had no right to be in the job.

    That’s the way it works. It has nothing to do with free speech. She has the right to say it, and the marketplace has the right to react. She didn’t get arrested. She has a right to speak. But she doesn’t have a right to embarrass Hearst Newspapers.

    Oh, by the way – she resigned. She wasn’t fired.

    Tough nuts for Helen Thomas.

  • mobius2702

    The right to peaceably assemble includes the right to choose who you will join in an assembly.

    In this case, if Hearst had fired it, they would have been exercising *THEIR* right to peaceably assemble.

    In this case, it quit under public criticism – citizens expressing *THEIR* freedom of speech, as noted in the preceding comment.

    Freedom of Speech does not protect anyone from the consequences of that speech. It really is that simple.

    • pirate55

      Unfortunately, your posting confuses two very important issues which must stand alone and independent of one another. If defense of Ms. Thomas “hate speech”, I am certain our defense of the First Amendment stands ready to fight for her unalienable right to state what she did.

      Now, that said, it must be as Ms. Thomas, not as a representative of the Heart news service, for when she says it as their employee, it is reflective of that employer unless stated otherwise. The only reason Ms. Thomas statements were so widely reported was because of her celebrity, due to her station and employer. Notice how much she is quoted now?

      Do not confuse these very separate issues Mr. Sordahl. I would suggest you have. Mr. Imus had his employment severed by the choice of his employer, which is the employer’s right to exercise. It is the employees’right to seek redress as Mr. Imus did, and maybe as you seem to be suggesting, Ms. Thomas should. It has little or nothing to do with the First Amendment.

      Every instance you cite, from such credible sources as Sean Penn and Bill Ayers to Cass Sunnstein (personal favorites) have a First Amendment Right of free speech. Every person who is employed and makes a PUBLIC statement will experience a risk-reward scenario in which there may or may not be consequences.

      It might even be more understandable, if say Ms. Thomas is a member of the Hearst editorial board but that is not her function as an employee of that organization. She is charged with accurately and fairly reporting the affairs of this country’s government, not to formulate a policy in that regard.

      And lastly, for you or anyone else who would like to debate issues such as this, is THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OFF THE RECORD! One is always on the record, just ask General McChrystal. If it finds its way here or in your media instrument, IT IS SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY WHICH IN NO WAY SHOULD BE CONFUSED WITH CENSURE!

  • http://Conservativecompass.com Bob Sordahl

    I agree, the free market can have it’s way with Thomas. If everyone quits reading here stuff, she’s gone. Same as if everyone stopped listening to Michael Savage or Rush. But, if you and a co-worker are having a friendly political discussion, and the boss over hears, does he have a right to fire you (or force you to resign) if he doesn’t agree with your political position?
    Also, I don’t really understand how peaceful assembly has anything to do with employment. If I wanted to run a business, and only wanted to “assemble” with white employees, I might run into trouble, don’t you think?

    • mschmitt

      “Providing direction for a new Conservative America” …

      Anyway…

      We never granted to Congress the Right to tell us not to protest what they do. The right to peaceably assemble is, therefore, an explicitly reserved Right.

      It is an extreme and grotesque misinterpretation of that principle to extend it to limit the employer-employee relationship. Hiring on the basis of race is prevented elsewhere in the Constitution. It is not provided by the freedom to peaceably assemble.

    • mriggio

      first off, having a ‘friendly political discussion’ at work, within earshot of the boss, might not be a career-enhancing move, unless your employment involves politics. Second, if you were fired because of your views, proving the motivation for the firing might be tricky; even the dullest boss knows better than to can somebody for being an R or D, on the record. Lastly, dear Helen wasn’t having a workplace talk with a co-worker, she was pontificating, mounting her high-horse on a flip-cam for all the world to see. You’d think that even a slow-witted employee would know better than to say or do something that might well embarrass the signer of the paychecks. Goes double for Imus. Brian Hibbert, downthread, is right: say what you will, but be prepared for the consequences (if you’re able to think that far ahead).

  • Brian Hibbert

    Freedom means you may say whatever you want. But that freedom doesn’t mean that your speaking doesn’t have consequences. If you aren’t willing to accept the consequences of saying stupid or racist things, you shouldn’t say them..

    The consequence of what Helen said was that she lost her job.

    • janis

      about free speech rights, too, but they refused to accept that we as consumers had our right to that same freedom of speech when we spoke out about their disgusting behavior on foreign soil. They really couldn’t understand how we could quit buying their CD’s and took the ones previously purchased and ran over them with our nasty old trucks.

      Lefties never accept that actions have consequences. For them, every thing they say is supposed to be considered sacred truth and exempt from criticism. Too bad.

  • Achance

    taking action against her for what she said. It doesn’t protect her from her employer taking action against her. Federal limitations on freedom of assembly or association must be very narrowly tailored to address specific acts of discrimination for or against various explicitly protected classes. Political party affiiation and political belief are not explicitly protected classes except in most public sector employment.

    The 1st Am. doesn’t even protect public employees if their speech is in the course of their employment. If a public employee is working, their speech is government speech, not individual speech, and is therefore not protected.

    In Thomas’ or any other private employer’s employee does something that damages the employer’s image or in some fashion brings the employer into disrepute, the employee can be disciplined or fired unless the employee can prove that the reason for the firing was a pretext and the firing was actually because of the employees membership in a protected class or participation in a protected activity.