Religion Of Peace
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Speech
Last edited by Beduin (2010-06-07 22:25:41)
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic
thatReciprocity wrote:
american working terrier association?Spark wrote:
AWTA.
or
agreed with the above.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
ah
To all who posted, I read your responses and I can not say I disagree, however, can a journalist not have a personal opinion and still be neutral while reporting the news? She was being interviewed, she was asked the questions. She was not conducting an interview or reporting the news. Do you not think the outcry over this is a little over-reactionary? As you have said, she is 90 god damn years old. Should we really put much weight on her influence anymore? Can we not dismiss her comments as
1. everyone has a right to an opinion and move along.
2. she is old and losing it, so who really cares what she thinks?
She has had a long and distinguished career. Is it fair to her to have this be her epitaph?
3. She is not influencing anyone anyway.
1. everyone has a right to an opinion and move along.
2. she is old and losing it, so who really cares what she thinks?
She has had a long and distinguished career. Is it fair to her to have this be her epitaph?
3. She is not influencing anyone anyway.
She has the right to her own opinion, just like the organization that employs her has the right to distance themselves from her.
And, if Brian Williams did the same...guess what would happen. Therefore, "she's fucking old" doesn't excuse her behavior
And, if Brian Williams did the same...guess what would happen. Therefore, "she's fucking old" doesn't excuse her behavior
Having freedom of speech means the ability to speak freely without the fear of persecution. In her case she is being punished for her personal opinion. She was not interjecting her will or opinion in a story she was covering. She was asked a question and she answered it. There should be no reprisals for this.Pug wrote:
She has the right to her own opinion, just like the organization that employs her has the right to distance themselves from her.
And, if Brian Williams did the same...guess what would happen. Therefore, "she's fucking old" doesn't excuse her behavior
I'm pretty sure her employment contract didn't read that way. Mine didn't, way back when I was a reporter.
lowing wrote:
Having freedom of speech means the ability to speak freely without the fear of persecution. In her case she is being punished for her personal opinion. She was not interjecting her will or opinion in a story she was covering. She was asked a question and she answered it. There should be no reprisals for this.
no, freedom of speech means she has the ability to speak freely without the fear of censorship. In one ruling the Supreme Court ruled that you cannot shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, and enjoy the protections of the First Amendment, and not be held civilly/criminally liable. The protection of the amendment was that she said it - how her employer reacted was not covered under those protections. What she did or did not say isn't a constitutional issue, and her employers did not censor her saying it - the issue is how her employers decided to act in response to the words she had already said.
unless you are a contract employee, anything you say, write, or do can and probably will be held against you.
Last edited by burnzz (2010-06-08 13:32:23)
President Barack Obama presenting Thomas cupcakes on her 89th birthday.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Thomas
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic
And then, Helen Thomas ate the cupcake off the president's lap.
Form both censorship and persecution. Anyway, by taking her forum away from her for what she said, can be held as censorship.burnzz wrote:
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/2074 … homas1.jpglowing wrote:
Having freedom of speech means the ability to speak freely without the fear of persecution. In her case she is being punished for her personal opinion. She was not interjecting her will or opinion in a story she was covering. She was asked a question and she answered it. There should be no reprisals for this.
no, freedom of speech means she has the ability to speak freely without the fear of censorship. In one ruling the Supreme Court ruled that you cannot shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, and enjoy the protections of the First Amendment, and not be held civilly/criminally liable. The protection of the amendment was that she said it - how her employer reacted was not covered under those protections. What she did or did not say isn't a constitutional issue, and her employers did not censor her saying it - the issue is how her employers decided to act in response to the words she had already said.
unless you are a contract employee, anything you say, write, or do can and probably will be held against you.
Uhh...no.lowing wrote:
Form both censorship and persecution. Anyway, by taking her forum away from her for what she said, can be held as censorship.
She still has the forum, if anyone puts her on the air. Therefore, it is not censorship.
What was taken away is her ability to draw a paycheck from the company that provided a forum.
A reporter should be objective/neutral. Sure everyone is allowed an opinion, but don't expect credibility after you pour out bigoted remarks. It's like a 300lb woman working at hooters. It's bad for business.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Depends what you mean by bigoted.Kmarion wrote:
A reporter should be objective/neutral. Sure everyone is allowed an opinion, but don't expect credibility after you pour out bigoted remarks. It's like a 300lb woman working at hooters. It's bad for business.
If she'd said "We should nuke Iran because they could be a threat to Israel" no-one would have batted an eyelid and Fox would put her on their payroll.
Some countries are above criticism apparently.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
No not really. This country is full of ppl like you as well. There is nothing unique in what you said.Dilbert_X wrote:
Depends what you mean by bigoted.Kmarion wrote:
A reporter should be objective/neutral. Sure everyone is allowed an opinion, but don't expect credibility after you pour out bigoted remarks. It's like a 300lb woman working at hooters. It's bad for business.
If she'd said "We should nuke Iran because they could be a threat to Israel" no-one would have batted an eyelid and Fox would put her on their payroll.
Some countries are above criticism apparently.
When people choose to enter the profession of reporting the news they should at least attempt to appear neutral. That is the only point that really matters here.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
She was asked her personal opinion, she gave it, whats the problem?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
the problem was her employers apparently didn't like that opinion. So now she's out of a job. Probably not that big of an issue seeing as she's 90.
You may voice any opinion you like, as long as it is the approved Politically Correct opinion.
Any other opinion is Doubleplusungood thoughtcrime, citizen.
Any other opinion is Doubleplusungood thoughtcrime, citizen.
wow very understanding of you. now if lowing had said that but about arabs, i bet your response and the response of others would be different.CameronPoe wrote:
I see the anti-semite card got played pretty quickly, which in the context of her comments is a bit inaccurate although her comments are fairly controversial and irrational. It's sixty years too late for her suggestion. Plus free speech comes with a 'pay for what you say' when you are employed by those whose revenues could be dented by your comments, that's life.
Helen Thomas shouldn't have been fired for that opinion, yes, but she probably shouldn't have voiced it. The reason her employers kept her on the job was because she made a great reporter. However, when a reporter states what their bias is, then they're not indifferent anymore, and people don't like that. So I guess her employers thought a statement like that would severely compromise her position. It's a sad thing she was fired (pressured into retirement even though she's 90) but she should have probably kept her mouth shut. Because, although she isn't at fault, a controversial comment like that isn't going to lead to anything good. It's easy to predict the amount of fallout a comment could lead to. The whole thing's a shame really.
Last edited by pace51 (2010-06-09 05:09:34)
you just had to step into it, hadn't you? our good friend lowing there never bashes arabs - not when he actually reads what he typed in before hitting "post" anyway - he bashes islam. you undestand the difference, don't you?11 Bravo wrote:
wow very understanding of you. now if lowing had said that but about arabs, i bet your response and the response of others would be different.CameronPoe wrote:
I see the anti-semite card got played pretty quickly, which in the context of her comments is a bit inaccurate although her comments are fairly controversial and irrational. It's sixty years too late for her suggestion. Plus free speech comes with a 'pay for what you say' when you are employed by those whose revenues could be dented by your comments, that's life.
but if you look at what thomas said you'll see that there's nothing religious, cultural or racial about it - that's the point cam was trying to make. palestine is occupied by israel - that's a fact she was talking about. the "anti-semite" bullshit has absolutely been manufactured.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Not true. If I owned and ran a shop and I found that the personal views of my employee was driving away customers I would be left with no option but to sack them - unless I wanted to make some principled stance on the matter and run a shop with a smaller profit margin or simply become a charity. Lowing says that kind of shit all the time, he's entitled to his opinion, he would however not last long on TV or radio if he aired his views publicly.11 Bravo wrote:
wow very understanding of you. now if lowing had said that but about arabs, i bet your response and the response of others would be different.CameronPoe wrote:
I see the anti-semite card got played pretty quickly, which in the context of her comments is a bit inaccurate although her comments are fairly controversial and irrational. It's sixty years too late for her suggestion. Plus free speech comes with a 'pay for what you say' when you are employed by those whose revenues could be dented by your comments, that's life.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-06-09 12:08:41)
because Rush and Hannity and Beck already have those jobs?CameronPoe wrote:
Lowing says that kind of shit all the time, he's entitled to his opinion, he would however not last long on TV or radio if he aired his views publicly.
who the fuck is helen thomas and why is this in D&ST?
does the trivial reshuffling of news reporters over here in the UK make D&ST-worthy topics?
what about romanian anchors?
shit imma go make a thread about eamonn holmes or loose women
the cunt was over 90, who gives a fuck, they were clearly waiting for an excuse to move her on without the cries of age discrimination
does the trivial reshuffling of news reporters over here in the UK make D&ST-worthy topics?
what about romanian anchors?
shit imma go make a thread about eamonn holmes or loose women
the cunt was over 90, who gives a fuck, they were clearly waiting for an excuse to move her on without the cries of age discrimination
Last edited by Uzique (2010-06-09 12:26:00)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Uzique wrote:
who the fuck is helen thomas
for decades she sat in with the White House press corps, occasionally asking "Where's the beef?"