This week, long time White House correspondent Helen Thomas retired due to the backlash caused by comments she made in relation to Israel. While her comments were lamentable and emblematic of her political naivete, they should hardly surprise anyone familiar with this particular fixture of the press corps. In fact, her statement proves once again that we are all equally endowed with both the ability and the right to express our ignorance.
Ms. Thomas had a long career of providing agenda driven responses to the news of the day. While this is also lamentable, it is equally recognized as a Constitutional right. Free speech, as with free press, does not preclude anyone from lying, distorting, confusing or otherwise misstating facts. Speech is only an issue when it is being manipulated by those in power. While Ms. Thomas may have, at times, willingly endorsed political positions which closely aligned with her own agenda, she did so out of her own choice.
Her decision to step down was almost certainly influenced by her employers, people subjected to the cold reality of a capitalist system that would punish them financially for not achieving this feat. While this is the fairest possible system, putting into the hands of the people the ability to support as they see fit, it also has the consequence of muffling the unreasonable views to which she has a right. Fortunately, she still has the ability to express her ignorance as a private citizen.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Leaving a trail of double-plus ungood thoughts back to my diseased mind in anticipation of the day when "prominent libertarian" is no longer an oxymoron.
2 comments:
What the hell are you trying to say here? Of course she has a constitutional right to speech and no one has said she doesn't. What she does not have is a constitutional right to be free from the consequences of said speech. And she does not have a constitutional right to a job.
Seems to me everything worked out as it should.
When people insist that she should go because what she said was "offensive", they ignore (or deny) the fact that she has the right to be offensive. I find it hypocritical when people who claim to support free speech slam people for speaking their mind.
She paid the price, as she should, based on the expectations of how the public would respond. Had she been forced out by government or some special interest group because she offended them, as has occurred many times to others before, that would have been criminal.
Post a Comment