Posted on 07/07/2010 8:31:14 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
It was with interest that I read Jamie Freeze’s article “In Defense of Helen Thomas,” which was published at Renew America and elsewhere. What grabbed my attention, as was surely intended, was the very counterintuitive nature of the title. A conservative writer, publishing on a conservative website, defending Helen Thomas, whose long career in the Washington press corps came to symbolize the intellectual bankruptcy and despicable left-wing bias of the mainstream media at their worst? So I was naturally attentive to see what Jamie had to say. While I understand the concerns that she has that led her to write her article, I found myself disagreeing with the arguments she made for a number of reasons.
Probably the cardinal error in Jamie’s defense of Helen Thomas was her assumption that the Constitution, or more specifically the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, applied to this case. The problem is that it does not. The Bill of Rights is a document which affirms the inherent liberties of the individual, true enough. But it, as with the Constitution as a whole, deals with the interface between government and the individual citizen. True to the First Amendment, the government cannot (among other things) punish you for speaking, writing, or printing your opinions. But the problem is, United Press International is not (officially, at least) a part of the US government. And it was UPI who punished Thomas by asking for her resignation, not the government....
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Jamie’s lack of a firm grasp of grammar and syntax is what lost me.
I really irks me when people seem to think that the First Amendment allows them to say anything without consequences or repercussions. It just means that the government isn't supposed to arrest you. If your employer decides to fire you ... well ... tough.
Yup, freedom isn’t free.
Good post, I just wanna weep that this has to be explained to us by a Canadian
well, to be more precise: an American published by a Canadian
Which is a tad better.
A good article. Those who do not understand freedom of association or why identity politics which seeks to elevate some categories of person/ideas beyond question or critique are the same people who would have not just our money stolen but our minds shackled.
We see every day the words “diversity” and “tolerance” being used to silence those who have different perspectives. Scientists and teachers are routinely fired or not hired because they do not adhere to liberal bias. Conservatives who think they can accept infringement of freedom of association are suicidal.
This is the same kind of fallacious thinking that leads people to believe that “checks and balances” refers to political parties.
It was with interest that I read Jamie Freeze's article "In Defense of Helen Thomas,"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.