NP Rank:
Helen Thomas Censored — So Much For Free Speech!
Helen Thomas said that she sees the Israelis as the occupiers of Palestine, who should return to their countries of origin. Within 24 hours of saying that, she was without an agent, without a speaking engagement, and without a job . . . Whatever happened to free speech in America?
Speech in America is descending to the character of a game that children used to play. An anticipated move would be announce to the leader, followed by the request, "may I." Well Americans should get all of their words together, and take them to Big Brother, and meekly ask, is this something that I am allowed to say, in the land of free . . . May I . . .
Ari Fleischer said that Helen Thomas' words were equivalent to a demand that all *Diasporans return to Africa. But instead of making his point, through this false analogy, he revealed his bias since, he only designated one group of Americans as vulnerable to that condition. Somehow he overlooked the fact that ALL Americans, not just those of African descent, are the descendants of immigrants; and if there were an analogy to be had, it would be a comparison between Jews required to leave Israel; with the descendants of all nationalities, except Native Americans ("Indians"), required to leave America. Ari Fleischer is wrong if he thinks that 400 years of unpaid service, diminishes an American's entitlement.
The trouble with this speech challenge is that we are at a loss for words, that inform us of what we can say. So far we know that Isaiah Washington is not allowed to say faggot, but Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter can. A University of Toledo administrator, Crystal Dixon, was fired for writing that homosexuality and race are not comparable; yet Vanderbuilt's Professor Awadh A. Binhazim keeps his job, after he said that homosexuals should die . . . You can loose your job for calling high performing female student athletes "nappy headed hoes," but you will probably be compensated with subsequent lucrative opportunities. You can't say Negro, if you are Harry Reid, but you can if you are the government, or an organization, or a song. If you are Glenn Beck, and you call the President a racist against whites, it might get you nudged out of one job, and into another, where you can call the president a racist against blacks, and you can denigrating his young child as not smart enough for you, and not white enough for her father who, according to Beck, "hates black people . . ." In addition to the freedom to call names, and abuse children, there is a speech free-for-all respecting religion, as long as it is the Christian religion. A caricature of Jesus, as a whirling dispenser of feces, won't cause you to loose your job, it can actually be you job . . . But the delima persists, despite all that we know about speech, we still do no know, what we can say . . .
We are descending into the unpredictable world of the neurotic, where the only standard is, the standard of the day. Professionals, athletes and celebrities are apologizing about, and explaining words, that they did not know, they should not say, until they got in trouble for it.
We used to know that name calling was a no-no, and attacking the religion of others was taboo; now name calling is a fine art, and denigrating religion has become an occupation . . . We can say many words, and we can say bad words, despicable words, insulting words, hateful words, insensitive words, painful words — just so long as we only speak empty words — words that speak nothing, of our personal truth . . .
*Diasporan: A descendant of a survivor of the African diaspora.
NowPublic on Facebook
Recommendations (12)
-
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States -
Amy Judd
Vancouver, Canada


Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (4)
at 15:12 on June 8th, 2010
You have made a very common misinterpretation of the First Amendment, which clearly states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. That didn't apply in this case. It was Ms. Thomas' associates that decided to distance themselves from her after the outrageous and indefensible statement and that is actually a practice of free speech in itself. The government did not imprison her, arrest her, prosecute or penalize her in any way. She was allowed to make her statement.
Congress HAS, however, infringed on our rights to free speech in several ways, not the least of which is "hate crime" legislation. If I say I hate a certain race of people while I am beating one of those people up, that is my right as per the Constitution. To increase the penalty of my crime because I expressed my opinion is a clear violation of my 1st Amendment right.
at 17:19 on June 8th, 2010
Rodge,
When individuals are empowered to interfere with the application of speech, to the extent that we witnessed with Helen Thomas, no matter what the statute says, we don't have free speech!
In the matter of hate crimes, I agree that the penalty for criminal behavior should not be enhanced because of the motivation of the perpetrator, however, I think that there should be a criminal penalty for verbal attacks, or any behavior that is designed to interfere with the peace and enjoyment of citizenship, based on race, gender, religion, or anything at all; sometimes, even white men, need protection in these matters . . .
Just like Americans should be free of harassment in the workplace, we should similarly be free of harassment in our daily lives. So, if you beat someone, you should be charged with criminal assault and batter; and if you were verbally attacking that person, you should have the additional criminal charge of some type of inteference with that person's enjoyment of their citizenship.
It is fine to constructively describe your point of view, but behavior that is designed to hurt, interfere with, and terrorize others, should not be allowed. That kind of behavior should have a criminal charge of it's own.
at 18:33 on June 8th, 2010
We have free speech when it comes to government interference or restriction but in other matters, you are exactly correct. If one of my employees (I have about 200) embarrasses myself or my company with an offensive statement that casts a negative image on my company, I will discipline and/or fire them. That is what happened with Thomas. She embarrassed her employer, her agent and some that had hired her for speaking engagements. They eliminated the source of their embarrassment.
Not trying to be argumentative on the second point but I can't find where in the Constitution it says that we are entitled to enjoy our citizenship. Are you saying anyone that insults another person is guilty of assault? That isn't a line I would like to see crossed.
at 05:51 on June 9th, 2010