I dislike this argument.
Free speech does not mean free from consequence. One is free to say what one wishes, but must accept the consequences of such speech. In this case, the consequence is to be known for the inflammatory and anti-semitic commentary.
You don’t get to do what you want without the world responding.
Helen simply made the mistake of allowing what she REALLY believes to slip out!! Leftists can’t AFFORD that. Unless, of course, they’re in congress or the Whitey House.
Of course, it all depends on whose ox is being gored..
It’s very rare for a liberal to suffer any consequences for hateful words. However, normal people get fired for saying innocent words that are twisted into hate speech. Macaca.
I’m glad this hateful anti-American witch got fired. Normal people suffer worse consequences.
Just curious....did Jamie Freeze write a similar article for Don Imus?
She was not out of a job for the one statement.
It was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
She has an extreme nasty liberal bias problem. It finally took her down. It took way too long, but it took her down.
It’s like saying a man gets life in prison for shaking down a passerby for his wallet under California’s Three Strikes law. No, he doesn’t. He gets life in prison for being a habitual criminal. He no doubt committed hundreds if not thousands of crimes before that one. You just get to a point.
Live by PC, die by PC.
It is a free country. Thomas was free not to resign. Her company was free to refuse to continue distributing her stories. We're free to condemn her for the hate-filled troll that she is. Jamie Freeze is free to defend her. Isn't it nice when everything works out as it should?
The "soundbite" was as indefensible as Robert Byrd's continued use of the n-word (with the excuse that "there are white n*****rs too").
I didn't see Helen Thomas as a "highly-respected news reporter". She was a bitter liberal hag. She was not respectful of President Bush and others as well.
Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite were formerly "respected" until their true personas were revealed.
A journalist can be a jerk personally and still a good journalist, but when a journalist distorts reality and even fabricates "evidence" out of whole cloth to turn a war or an election, and the public becomes aware of it, they are disgraced.
Good riddance to a disgusting (almost) human being.
Helen Thomas was a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance and a true illustration of the competency (or lack thereof) of our bottom of the SAT barrel “journalists”.
Highly respected journalist ?
Helen Thomas journalistic integrity is to respectable journalism, as fart jokes are to humor
Just keep in mind that her ideological enemies didn’t fire her. Her friends fired her.
Good to keep in mind from time to time.
The Hollywood blacklists? Hollywood blacklisting their pals.
Trent Lott, pick up the white courtesy phone.
Imus, Jimmy The Greek, Earl Butz, Rush on MNF . . . where were you then?
The old witch got away with shooting off her mouth without consequences for so long she thought she was bullet proof. Don’t expect sympathy.
Hellen Thomas has, by her statements, shown America and the world exactly what she is... she is nothing but an evil, Anti-Semitic witch who hates the Jews and who hates Israel and wants to see Israel destroyed/no longer exists and who wants the Jews dead!
Her statement: "Let the Jews return to Poland, let them return to Germany." = Translation: LET THE JEWS RETURN TO THE OVENS, LET THEM DIE!
As I said, Hellen Thomas is free to say what ever she likes. She has, and in doing so is now deservidly suffering the consequences of her statements because, even in our dumbed down society, words still mean something.
Because of what she has said (no one forced her to say it or put the words into her vile mouth), Hellen Thomas will be forever remembered as the Anti-Semitic hag who wants Jews dead and Israel destroyed. This is now, and will forever be her legacy.
Jamie probably forgot that Coulter did lose her gig over at National Review over it.
But responding to Jamie's larger argument, I would say that yes, I essentially agreed with Coulter's remarks (written, you'll remember, in the aftermath of 911 and the death of her close friend). And I disagree with Thomas's remarks.
Coulter called for the invasion of the countries that attacked us. I agreed. She called for the death of the leaders of the attacks, and again I agreed. She called for the conversion of the muslim world to Christianity as the only real solution to Islam's notoriously bloody borders. Might be impolite to say but again I agree. She's right. Islam in the modern age is returning to its expansionist roots and is notoriously and sometimes viciously intolerant of other faiths.
Why did her friends fire her? I don't know. I wouldn't have, obviously. My best explanation is her explanation. The kids at National Review are girly men. Funny, I still read her and I don't often read them.
Thomas? She just said what most of the Left thinks. So why she would be fired escapes me, except that her friends didn't want their beliefs exposed so openly to a public that by and large doesn't agree.
I never read her and I don't often read them either. Firing her was a business decision. Was it right? Depends on the demographic you're trying to reach. If you are going for the anti-semite pro-jihadist Left, then she's a good addition to your stable of writers.