Comments about ‘Respect and tolerance’

Interesting, she is forced out for a statement already voiced by many over the years, yet Robert Novak, who OUTS an agent of the CIA, is made a hero. Must be something in the old statement, "depends on whose bull is being gored" ?

Sadly, just a hateful old woman who in the past has been reported really unkind to others for many, many years! It would be too easy however to simply say "just deserts". It really is very sad that a career comes down to a few ill timed words. Was she thrown overboard, in an attempt to make it all just go away? Or is she just old and bitter about being old? The "Expendable" generation. Very, very sad!

"This was confirmed in part by an editorial in the International Herald Tribune, which attacked the alleged hypocrisy of Americans for supporting free speech but forcing Thomas to retire. "Her choice of words may have been poor, but her views reflect the sentiments of much of the world – outside of America's borders of course," it said."

It seems the vast majority of the world has a misconception of what "free speech" really is. Using the law of civil disobedience as a model (that no man should be compelled to abide by any law he deems unjust, but he must pay the consequences for his actions) Helen Thomas freely spoke her mind without retribution of any government. She wasn't thrown in jail, no physical harm came to her. That's the "free speech" part. But she did face consequences for her statement. To say she was "forced" to retire would seem to imply that she was ordered to never work again. Certainly that is not true. She does have the burden of finding an employer that would hire her after her untimely remarks. That's a situation for which she can only blame herself.

Thomas' piteous statement was only window dressing, and I'm sure she cringed while writing it.

We've all seen her anti-semitic diatribe in the video, but there was another video of her editorializing while 'asking' a question in the whitehouse press room. In her 'question' she ranted on and on about how evil Israel was and how could we justify supporting a nation that massacred others.

I think the scowling, sinister face she's pulling in the picture just about sums her up.

If the palestinians wanted peace with Israel, why did they elect Hamas to govern them? Why was the psyco, Arafat, their leader for so long? Why if Israel put down her arms would Israel cease to exist?
This caustic woman, Helen Thomas, has been the biased, leftist media darling for so long. Why oust her for saying what she has been saying for so long? Most of the DNC media machine agree with her and her anti-Israel veiwpoints of the middle east.

The last 10 years she was an opinion columnist. Her comments were appalling, but she was not a reporter.

Re:ECR | 5:22 a.m.

100% spot on.

ECR, I thought the exact same thing when I read that statement, thank you for writing the response so I didn't have to, and probably better than I would have.

It is frustrating when people throw around rhetoric like this "free speech" statement. It just tends to water down people's appreciation for what free speech (or whatever idea they're touting at the moment) really means.

When someone has a hateful bias as strong as hers clearly is toward Jews, it affects a person's ability to perform a job that requires responsible reporting. The same thing would be expected, only with more condemnation, if someone said "all blacks should go home to Africa." It's nice to see the double standard didn't save her bacon this time.

A reporter who claims, "most people who live in that part of the world agree"... does not have a understanding of the real conflicts and the disagreements that exist in the area.

To ECR - well put. Your comments reflected my own thoughts when I read this paragraph, and many others like it in news or opinion pieces decrying the consequences of free speech as though free speech has been violated.

For the vast majority of the world's population to have a misconception of free speech is simple ignorance. For any legitimate newspaper to perpetuate that misconception is deliberate and dishonest propaganda intended to incite the ignorant masses.

To Esquire:
Insightful comment. If Helen Thomas truly has been been writing as an opinion columnist for the last 10 years, why is she being thrown under the bus for expressing her opinion, as politically incorrect as her opinions might be?

To: ECR, Grundle, Joe Moe, and DSB:
I couldn't agree more.

So much for "white House" correspondants being "unbiased"

What was she, 89? Time for you to go anyway. When people talk about respect & tolerance they only want repect & tolerance they don't what to give it. So in the poll that was taken of course a large percent want respect & tolerance, but only for their ideas.

ECR;

Like the article pointed out... "Freedom_of_speech" means you have the freedom to speak (meaning your neighbor or the government can't force you to shut_up). But it doesn't mean "Freedom from the consequences of your hate_speech".

If you say things that embarrass your employer (a news agency) and undermine the reputation of the paper that employs you... they are under no obligation to continue to employ you.

"Freedom_of_speech" does NOT imply your employer has no_freedom to fire you for spewing hate and inflamatory messages at a large portion of their readership.

She STILL has her "Freedom_of_Speech". Nobody's preventing her from speaking! She just doesn't get paid to cover the White House anymore. She can go down to the park and speak all she wants. She still has "Freedom_of_Speech".


Freedom_to_speak... does not carry with it "Freedom_from_any_consequences that come from what you say.



ECR,
Since you brought up hypocracy...

Weren't many on the left lectureing people that it's fine to boycott/punish companies_owned_by_LDS_people because_some_LDS_people_in_California exercised_their Freedom to speak/vote their concience on prop_8?

Didn't you point out that it's freedom_to_SPEAK... not freedom_from_consequences of your speach? So boycotts, threats, vandalism, etc, are fine?

You all need to go to Irael and see for yourself. Most Israels are not religious at all and our government has no place supporting Irael for religious reasons.

Israel TOOK the land from Palistinians in order to even exist. They didn't peacfully buy the land or integrate with palistinians to be there.

They have miserably repressed the palistinians and have used brutal deadly force to continue taking more land in thier own Manifest Destiny play. How do you expect Palistinians to react to that? Everyone should just leave thier homes and take it right?

How many muslim bases would you support in and arounf the USA. How many states would you allow a muslim nation to take for free? Most posts are sinfully missinformed here.

Is it just me, or does she look a little grumpy to anybody else out there?

@Screwdriver.

First, even if everything you said is true, it's irrelevant to the Thomas comments and this thread.

But, since you brought it up.... Several of your tidbits raise my eyebrows.

First, what iota of difference does it make if the majority of Israelis are religious or not? I can't believe you even said that...or you meant something else entirely and just misspoke.

Second, about Israel taking Palestine. As I recall, the mumbo jumbo of what we call the middle east is a mess going back centuries. But most recently, note that in 1948 the UN, with the complicity of Britain (which controlled most of the area at the time), established the area for a Jewish state. What were the Jews supposed to do, say "No thanks, we'll go back to Germany/Poland/USSR/wherever, whether they want us or not"? Instead, they followed the UN and formed their democratic nation (inviting Arabs to be part of their new nation...but those Arabs left at the urging of Arab nations who said they would attack and kick the Jews out).

Israel has made blunders and is not guiltless, clearly. But your arguments are flat.

Question 9:16 - I'm trying to decide whether or not you are just trying to pick a fight with me. I thought you and I would agree on this subject - for a change.

I did not "bring up hypocracy". The only time that word was mentioned was in the statement I reprinted from the article that was attributed to the International Herald Tribune with which I was disagreeing.

Freedom of speech is NOT freedom from consequences but acceptable consequences do not include vandalism, threats or any other form of actual or implied violence.

When the Dixie Chicks made disparaging remarks about President Bush many people reacted by boycotting their concerts and some radio stations publicly smashed their CDs. Those were acceptable acts of "free speech" by those whom they had offended. The death threats against them were not.

When Larry Miller chose not to show "Breakback Mountain" at his theaters many were upset but he was simply exercising his free speech and should have understood that anyone boycotting his theaters because they disagreed with him were also exercising their free speech. The same concept would apply to those who boycott bookstores because they sell pornographic material.

Helen Thomas has expressed these rancid views for decades. The difference now is YouTube. Someone with a flip video camera got actual footage and posted it for hundreds of millions to see. Where before only political hobbyists knew what she was about, now she was exposed in front of mainstream America. It wasn't pretty. Her employer didn't have much of a choice.

Similar to when Dan Rather was caught red-handed making stuff up.