Jump to content

holygoat

Helen Thomas to Israeli Jews - Get Out of Palestine And Go Back To Europe

Recommended Posts

Be interesting to see what the human race/human face looks like in 200 years. We'll probably all be half machine and living in some sort of computer-run dystopia.

If you want to see a 200 year old human face, there's a video of Helen Thomas right in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wayne State pulls diversity award named after Helen Thomas | freep.com | Detroit Free Press

“As a public university, Wayne State encourages free speech and open dialogue, and respects diverse viewpoints. However, the university strongly condemns the anti-Semitic remarks made by Helen Thomas …”

Read more: Wayne State pulls diversity award named after Helen Thomas | freep.com | Detroit Free Press Wayne State pulls diversity award named after Helen Thomas | freep.com | Detroit Free Press

Here's what she said:

Defiant Helen Thomas defends remarks that led to exit | freep.com | Detroit Free Press

"We are owned by propagandists against the Arabs. There's no question about that. Congress, the White House, and Hollywood, Wall Street, are owned by the Zionists. No question in my opinion. They put their money where there mouth is…We're being pushed into a wrong direction in every way."

Read more: Defiant Helen Thomas defends remarks that led to exit | freep.com | Detroit Free Press Defiant Helen Thomas defends remarks that led to exit | freep.com | Detroit Free Press

Sounds like Pat Buchanan circa 1990's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what did she get wrong?

Are you asking what she got wrong by saying this:

"the leaders of Wayne State University have made a mockery of the First Amendment and disgraced their understanding of its inherent freedom of speech and the press."

I honestly am not sure, that's why I'm asking. Because I think it's pretty clear that she's completely wrong. The First Amendment protects people's speech from government punishment. I suppose one could say that a public university is a quasi-government entity. (For informational purposed, there is actually quite a bit more separation between the state gov't and Michigan public universities than there are in other states. Michigan has a pretty "hands off" laws with regard to telling the public U's what to do and how to do it.)

However, even if you want to say that the university is gov't and therefore shouldn't be punishing Thomas for things she said, how exactly is she being punished? By not having an award named after her any more? If that's a punishment, then I'm going to sue a lot of other public universities that aren't naming awards after me because they are obviously punishing me. Not sure why they are punishing me, but I'm sure I can find some reason. (Probably because I'm Dutch-American. Those liberal institutions always hated the Dutch.)

Furthermore, given the very nature of the award...a DIVERSITY award, doesn't it make it quit hypocritical of said award to be named after someone who has made disparaging remarks about a subset of people, and had no remorse for such comments? Whether you believe the comments to be correct or not, these are not comments that are made by someone who embraces diversity and makes it pretty bad if you have an award designed to recognize diversity named after such an individual.

I'm quite certain that if this award was named after a white person and than the person made comments to the effect that Obama was just trying to get all the African-Americans into power to over throw whitey and punish him... well, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be on the next plane to Wayne state protesting naming a diversity award after such a person... and with good reason!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me fill in a few blanks for you oblong. She was given recognition by the government. She said something. Then the government retaliated against her specifically and quite clearly for said speech by taking away that recognition.

I propose she knows more about the first amendment, given her career and this specific quote, than you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you asking what she got wrong by saying this:

I honestly am not sure, that's why I'm asking. Because I think it's pretty clear that she's completely wrong. The First Amendment protects people's speech from government punishment. I suppose one could say that a public university is a quasi-government entity. (For informational purposed, there is actually quite a bit more separation between the state gov't and Michigan public universities than there are in other states. Michigan has a pretty "hands off" laws with regard to telling the public U's what to do and how to do it.)

However, even if you want to say that the university is gov't and therefore shouldn't be punishing Thomas for things she said, how exactly is she being punished? By not having an award named after her any more? If that's a punishment, then I'm going to sue a lot of other public universities that aren't naming awards after me because they are obviously punishing me. Not sure why they are punishing me, but I'm sure I can find some reason. (Probably because I'm Dutch-American. Those liberal institutions always hated the Dutch.)

Furthermore, given the very nature of the award...a DIVERSITY award, doesn't it make it quit hypocritical of said award to be named after someone who has made disparaging remarks about a subset of people, and had no remorse for such comments? Whether you believe the comments to be correct or not, these are not comments that are made by someone who embraces diversity and makes it pretty bad if you have an award designed to recognize diversity named after such an individual.

I'm quite certain that if this award was named after a white person and than the person made comments to the effect that Obama was just trying to get all the African-Americans into power to over throw whitey and punish him... well, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be on the next plane to Wayne state protesting naming a diversity award after such a person... and with good reason!

Wayne State is not a quasi-government structure - it *is* the government. There is no real wiggle room there - the employees there work for the state and exhert influence and action only as a result of that power coming from the state.

She would be quite wrong if this were a private university - but it isn't.

Let me point out that she isn't suing anybody or suggesting she could or would from what I've heard. She simply pointed out the first amendment issue. Second, your analogy breaks down because by taking something away from her they are trying to punish and marginalize here - hardly the same thing as not *giving* somebody recognition in the first place. Now if the latter happened in a case because of that persons publically protected speech there might be an issue to discuss - but it does not appear to be the case in your hypothetical.

You might be right that it is inappropriate for an award of that type to bare her name - I am not taking a position on that issue at all - I'm ambivalent on whether they are "right" or not. I was just point out that - as far as I can tell - Oblong's suggestion that she does not understand the first amendment reflected more on him than her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did she go to jail?

So yeah, she's wrong. The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to receive an award.

It's not a First Amendment issue. They are not denying her the right to say anything.

Accepting consequences for your speech is not at all the same thing as being denied the right to that speech.

Was the Juan Williams situation about First Amendmetn? NPR Receives gov't funding. They didn't like what he said. They fired him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember when Gary Moeller's First Amendment rights were violated after his drunken rant in the restaurant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She has not been harmed financially by the University. This was an honorary situation. They are free to remove the honor. Don't think the University's legal team didn't go through everything necessary to insure they weren't on some sort of legal tightrope here. The University does not want to honor someone that is under the impression that "zionists" control the globe. The irony of these "clarifications" being made at a symposium designed to decry stereotypes is most unfortunate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the first amendment does not require you to go to jail

that comment and the rest of your posts show you clearly don't have a clue about the law around the first amendment

you don't like her - got it - but if your hatred causes you to voice BS i'll point it out

that is all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How has her right to free speech been denied? It hasn't.

It's not illegal to say the Jews run the media and country and Hollywood. She said it, someone didn't like it and didn't want to be associated to her. It's no different than a station no longer playing the Dixie Chicks or Luke Scott losing an endorsement because he's a birther.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so - in essence - your position is that if she did say it (i.e. they didn't stop her) her first amendment right was not violated

as i said - you don't know much about the law there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What legal authority was used to punish her for saying what she did? A university revoked naming of an award after her? That's quite a leap of logic.

Were John Rocker's rights violated if his college or university had revoked an athletic award that was named after him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first amendment does not require any "legal authority". In fact the fundamental argument in such a case is that the government has no legal authority for what they did. Then the court rules on that.

I didn't say her rights were violated - I said that she was right to say it was a first amendment matter. You can try to change the subject if you want - all I'm saying is that your original contemptuous dismissal of her comment was unfounded.

I suspect you hadn't thought of the aspect of a public university in your rush to suggest somebody you don't like is an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wayne State is not a quasi-government structure - it *is* the government. There is no real wiggle room there - the employees there work for the state and exhert influence and action only as a result of that power coming from the state.

Sorry... but I think you are wrong here. There is a lot more separation here than you might be aware. Yes, they are "public" universities, and yes, they do receive funds from the government. But the government, at least in Michigan, is quite limited in what they do in terms of telling the schools how they should act. The universities also are very limited in what they can demand from the state. Finally, funding from the state is only part of the budget for the public Us. The biggies (U of M, MSU) get more from tuition

than the State and they get close to the same from research grants. The smaller schools are probably more along a 50/50 split between tuition and the state. Maybe a 40/60 for some.

I think there is a lot more wiggle room than you believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are public universities. Not "public" but public. As one who spent 10 years as a professor at a public university I am pretty well aware of the various structures.

Various parts of the government are limited in what they can tell other parts of the government. Take a look at the executive branch to congress for example. Both are still parts of the government and ripe for first amendment abuses. You seem to think some degree of separation of operation between two is significant - and it almost certainly would be an issue in any court argument - but both are none the less the government and wield governmental powers. There is *no* separation between the state universities and the government - they *are literally* the government.

There is a lot of wiggle room in any argument that she could make and the issues I've sketched out here - I've never suggested that she would be right in bringing a charge nor that it would carry the day.

I've said that Oblong was wrong to laugh at her misunderstanding of the first amendment. The fact that you see wiggle room suggests to me that you agree with my point there as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry... but I think you are wrong here. There is a lot more separation here than you might be aware. Yes, they are "public" universities, and yes, they do receive funds from the government. But the government, at least in Michigan, is quite limited in what they do in terms of telling the schools how they should act. The universities also are very limited in what they can demand from the state. Finally, funding from the state is only part of the budget for the public Us. The biggies (U of M, MSU) get more from tuition

than the State and they get close to the same from research grants. The smaller schools are probably more along a 50/50 split between tuition and the state. Maybe a 40/60 for some.

I think there is a lot more wiggle room than you believe.

I worked at the University of Michigan for 10 years. Every email and document I wrote was fair game for FOIA requests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are public universities. Not "public" but public. As one who spent 10 years as a professor at a public university I am pretty well aware of the various structures.

Logic professor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first amendment does not require any "legal authority". In fact the fundamental argument in such a case is that the government has no legal authority for what they did. Then the court rules on that.

I didn't say her rights were violated - I said that she was right to say it was a first amendment matter. You can try to change the subject if you want - all I'm saying is that your original contemptuous dismissal of her comment was unfounded.

I suspect you hadn't thought of the aspect of a public university in your rush to suggest somebody you don't like is an idiot.

What whack job that Mike Cox fired.... were his issues the same as Helen Thomas? After all he was only exercising his first amendment rights. He was a public employee.

Helen Thomas was not an employee at WSU. They named an award after her. It was marketing. She said something they didn't like so they took her name off the award. This is not a First amendment issue and her bringing that into it only confirms that she's a senile old hag in addition to being a hateful bigot. She still has freedom of speech. It doesn't matter whether it was a public or private university.

People love to whine about the first amendment when they get called out for saying something stupid. This is no different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know who mike cox is - changing the subject again I see.

One does not need to be an employee of the government for it to be a freedom of speech issue. Again - the more you say - the clearer you make it that you don't understand the matter. Thats OK. Its a free country. But it looks strange when you turn around and laugh at her understanding.

This is completely different from when most people complain about it - you just hate her and that blinds you to the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a celebrity says that blacks are inferior and loses an endorsement deal from gatorade, is that a freedom of speech issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...