Question:
Why are people upset with Helen Thomas?
anonymous
2010-06-08 10:19:18 UTC
She has a right to free speech.
Eighteen answers:
anonymous
2010-06-08 17:57:28 UTC
I agree she has a right to free speech but I guess she didn't say it in a diplomatic way. The right be after her for a long time. §
?
2010-06-08 17:24:46 UTC
And the people who are upset have a right to voice their displeasure with her comments as well. You're implying that it's ok to have a right to free speech, as long as it isn't used to complain about what someone else said. I haven't even heard what she said, but I can say there's a difference between having the right to free speech, and having the common sense to not say something stupid, and apparently she crossed that line. I will say, though, that it would be a good thing to get rid of all political correctness, and leave people to judge whether they want to listen or not. I hate mincing words so I don't offend someone, it defeats the purpose of the sentence.
scaerdrys
2010-06-08 17:27:16 UTC
Having a right to free speech is not the same thing as having the right to a national platform, it is not the same thing as having the right to have everyone else agree with your opinions, and it is certainly not the same thing as having the right to not jeopardize your career when you spew hate-filled drivel for the whole country to see. People didn't want a member of the WHPC who advocated ethnic cleansing. Hearst newspapers didn't want a octagarian liability on their staff, and they had the right to fire her azz. Read up on your First Amendment Rights, sometime.



I hope you are only taking up space in a community college.

Peace
anonymous
2010-06-08 17:21:23 UTC
And she exercised that right without Government interference, just like the 1st Amendment guarantees.



The 1st Amendment does NOT protect her or anyone else from the court of public opinion. Or for being fired from her employer.
anonymous
2010-06-08 17:25:35 UTC
And we have a right to be upset by what she said and see to it we are not forced to hear it any more. The freedom of speech does not remove the consequences of said speech. It only means you can not be jailed for speaking out against the government.
princess011
2010-06-08 17:33:41 UTC
She had no right to say such a thing about the Jewish people. Aside from that, Israel is one of the United State's few allies. If this is how we treat our friends, then soon we won't have any left.



By the way, we also have the right to be offended by what she said.
Uncle Pennybags
2010-06-08 17:23:02 UTC
Yes, she has the right to free speech.



And we have the right to be offended by her speech if it is offensive. And we have the right to say so. And we have the right to hold her accountable for her speech.



So I'm not quite sure why you are wondering why this is a problem.
defunktory
2010-06-09 02:50:07 UTC
And I have the right to free speech too, but if I tell my mother-in-law what I think about her...well, you know! You takes your chances! Helen Thomas' parents were Lebanese immigrants from Tripoli, Lebanon. Would you support an American Indian telling Helen to go the hell back to Lebanon? Why not? It's the same thing. What Helen Thomas actually said is stupid. The idea that somehow the Israelis have no right to the land they now inhabit, and therefore no right to defend themselves and their acquired homeland, is ridiculous. Suppose rockets from an Indian Reservation were being launched from the reservation into an American city, killing innocent civilians? Regardless of the past history, involving Americans displacing said Indians and taking over their land by force, invading the attacking reservation and arresting and executing the criminal attackers would still be considered a justifiable reaction. Israel’s situation is no different.



After all, there are very few countries lacking a history similar in this respect. Every nation in North and South America displaced the native population and took over their land. Does this mean that they have no right to defend themselves from attack?



Human history is replete with examples of a weaker people being displaced by a stronger people, from Australia to Britain, and all points in between. In fact, this is a long established tradition of us Homo Sapiens, who began our dominance of the planet by wiping out all the Neanderthals and taking their lands. (While I am in no way comparing Palestinians to Neanderthals, one imagines the Neanderthals appealing to the UN!)



The other Arab countries also add to the problem by supporting the Hamas terrorists and refusing to resettle the Palestinians in their own countries. They would do this if they really cared about the Palestinians, but they do not. They only care about hating Jews.



The Palestinians, instead of whining about the lost battles of the past, should instead abandon the political leadership that has been unable to redress the situation through terrorism, and give good-faith negotiations a shot. The Israelis are not unreasonable, and would be perfectly willing to come to an equitable resolution of the regions difficulties, if they only had responsible Palestinian leaders to work with.



Helen Thomas, at 89 years old, is well past time when she should retire. It is a shame that such a long and distinguished career should be ended on such a sore note, but she is the one who answered the question in such an extraordinarily insensitive manner. For a long time now Thomas has been anything but a reporter, with views and opinions literally from another age.



Traditionally, the White House Press Corps has held a higher standard than radio talk show fellows and news broadcasters, or even columnists. Back in the newspaper days, being in the White House Press Corps was the pinnacle of success in the field. Times have certainly changed since Helen Thomas pulled her Model T up to the front door of the White House.



Perhaps this will bring back the debate as to whether the White House Press Corps should have only reporters, not columnists like Thomas or radio talk show trolls. The standard for who is allowed in the White House Press Corps needs to be brought back to what it used to be, an elite group of top-of-the-line reporters. Of course, the great reduction in quality in the White House Press Corps does match the downward trend in media reporting since the cable 'news' shows came into being. Now that 'news' is a for-profit venture, rather than a non-profit public service of the three networks, it is pitiful indeed. Imagine calling fellows like Beck and Olberman reporters. Let's just reserve seats for real reporters (if we can find any) from now on, shall we?



When the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto rebelled (even though the situations are hardly comparable), they armed themselves and fought against Nazi SOLDIERS, not innocent civilians. But the Palestinians do not fight according to the Geneva Convention, they fight as terrorists with suicide bombers, rocket attacks on civilians, and fake 'aid' convoys meant to create martyrs for propaganda. Let the Palestinians field an army and initiate combat. I would not deny the Palestinians the right to fight for land they consider theirs, but the Palestinians are too weak to win, so they whine to the world media instead. Public opinion rarely wins a war. The Turks should be ashamed that they have allowed Israel's enemies to mount such a cynical 'aid' mission. They have some 'splaining to do.



In conclusion, a sovereign state such as the US or Israel answers to no one but themselves. Only the weak, the senile, or those whose grasp of human history is mediocre at best, whine about it.

.
anonymous
2010-06-08 17:24:41 UTC
She does have a right to free speech AND the consequences that come from it.



I take her almost as seriously as I take you.
fatboy
2010-06-08 17:26:16 UTC
she's a racist idiot who deserved to lose her job....free speech doesn't have anything to do with it..why do you libs always try to place the blame on someone or something else, can't you handle the truth..
anonymous
2010-06-08 17:21:35 UTC
I agree with you about her having the right to say what she said, but people are also free to be repulsed by what she said. Since liberals now hate Israel, I am not surprised at what she said.
The Good Bad Guy
2010-06-08 17:21:23 UTC
Yes she does , and Hearst also has a right to let her go and so does the Whitehouse. She isn't being jailed ! although she is being shamed and rightfully so
?
2010-06-09 16:06:11 UTC
I just hope she doesn't send out her flying monkeys now that she has so much time on her hands!
anonymous
2010-06-08 17:23:04 UTC
So do the people that are upset with her.
Johnny Sokko
2010-06-08 17:21:55 UTC
Right, and Hearst has the right to fire her.
anonymous
2010-06-08 17:20:50 UTC
So only libs have a right to degrading and racist speech
anonymous
2010-06-08 17:21:58 UTC
Normal people don't support bigots.



Liberals are not normal.
anonymous
2010-06-08 17:21:06 UTC
Because she is a Christian that speaks the truth


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...