The recent flap over the controversial comments made by veteran reporter Helen Thomas in which she expressed her view that the Jews need to get out of Israel because the Palestinians were there first (or so she thinks) is an interesting lesson on free speech and its implications.The purpose of this post is not to debate the context of the very complicated nature of Israeli/Palestinian dispute, but rather to think on the nature of speech, what it means for speech to be free, and the implications of discussion in a free society.
The Founding Fathers wanted freedom of speech not so that people could express publicly whatever they wanted, which is why I am so dismayed at Hollywood's insistence that free speech means the right to express profanity publicly. Thomas Jefferson simply did not have in mind the number of times Kanye West could use the "F" word on stage, which should not surprise us since the Founders were profound and deep thinkers, while most celebrities are not. The guarantee of free speech means that people are free to express unpopular ideas when it comes to the politics of the common good. One does not need to guarantee the right to express popular notions, it's the unpopular views that need to be protected.
The views expressed by Helen Thomas on Israel are a reminder to us that while what she said is and should be protected as freedom of expression, nevertheless such expression carries consequences with it. To guarantee of free speech is but a reminder that speech is critical because words have consequences. Thomas was free to express her very misguided views, but today she is living with the consequences of expressing those views publicly. In the United States and in many other countries in the world speech is free, but it is not cheap.
Several years ago the music group the Dixie Chicks made some disparaging remarks about the then current POTUS, George W. Bush during a concert. Many of their fans objected and they saw sales of their music plummet. I remember watching one commentator on the matter refer to this phenomenon as the Dixie Chicks being censored for their views. They were not censored in the least. They were free to express their opinion just as their fans were also free to express their views and stop buying tickets to their concerts and spending money on their music.
Speech should be free and any society has a stake in guaranteeing such speech, not because it is cheap, but because words matter.
9 comments:
In terms of "free speech" generically, it's hard to separate this from the actual issue.
While Thomas' view was inarticulate on quite a number of levels, I wonder if she would have got the same reaction if she'd said that the Palestinians need to get the hell out of Israel and go back to the desert, for instance? I think that, although cringe-making, that would have been a perfectly acceptable comment in US culture.
Most of my Jewish friends in Britain accept the fact that atrocities have been committed in equal measure on both sides and they are - for the most part - willing to say that some particular Israeli action or another offends justice. Although the atmosphere in the US does seem to be changing, naming Israel's sins is still unacceptable here for the most part.
I'm NOT defending what she said (and I'm also pretty certain people will think that I am) but it's often difficult to separate context and worldview from what we consider "bearing the consequences of freedom of speech".
Pam, you write,
"I wonder if she would have got the same reaction if she'd said that the Palestinians need to get the hell out of Israel and go back to the desert, for instance? I think that, although cringe-making, that would have been a perfectly acceptable comment in US culture."
Actually, my take on this is that such a comment would generally not be acceptable in the US. What the fallout would be I cannot say.
And neither do I agree that naming Israel's sins is unacceptabe in the US. I think on this side of the pond, however, we suffer from the same distortion of perspective toward Europe as Europe has toward the US on this issue, though in reverse. We tend to see Europe as highlighting to the nth degree the transgressions of Israel while minimizing the unjust actions of the Palestinians, particularly Hamas. I think there is also this strong impression that without the US, no other nation of the world, in the event of an all out assault on Israel, would come to Israel's assistance. I think the view is that the nations of Europe would simply wring their hands and denounce such aggression, while letting it happen. I am not suggesting that is indeed the case, but that is the general impression, which I think provides more context to the way things are perceived.
My Dad always told us that we should not discuss religion or politics with family, friends, or colleagues, because it would just lead to trouble or discord. It was his way of saying that words have consequences. It has helped me particularly at work, and in places where something I say or do could get back to my boss. This view has, however, had the negative consequence of making it difficult for me to tell people about God.
By the way, I love the Dixie Chicks' music, but have stopped buying their CDs, beause listening to their music now leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If they had expressed their views privately I would not have taken this issue, but they chose to make their views known during a concert in a foreign country, which I felt was unnecessary and inappropriate.
And did you hear what Paul McCartney said when accepting an award in the US? Why was that necessary? It shows a total lack of class in my opinion. can't imagine doing anything remotely like that in a similar situation.
Lynn
Hi. I came across your blog through another blog I follow and have signed up as a follower. When you’re free, please do visit me and let me know what you think of my blog and leave a comment. If you like, do follow as well. I am always open to great new people and interesting websites. Look forward to hearing from you.
We tend to see Europe as highlighting to the nth degree the transgressions of Israel while minimizing the unjust actions of the Palestinians, particularly Hamas.
Interesting. I think Europeans tend to see that the only Superpower in the world is "for" Israel and "against" Palestine.
Having thought about this blog this morning, it occurred to me that the larger issue here (and I want to totally divorce these comments from any thoughts about Middle Eastern politics) is perhaps that "The consequence of free speech is to bear the wrath of public or majority opinion". That opinion may or may not be "correct" or "just".
There is a way in which leaders must sometimes bear the consequences of this because sometimes speaking the truth is to attract stiff opposition. On the other side, sometimes public opinion is on the side of good and the "consequences of free speech" are to bear the correction of society.
The problem with Helen Thomas is that she is supposed to be unbiased in her reporting. It is an open secret that she has been anything but unbiased in her reporting. She has been pro Palestinian for a long time. Her departure was due long ago.
OK, Bruce, thanks for the explanation. It never occurred to me that anyone would think that any newspaper, television station or radio station carried "unbiased" coverage of anything. (And I'm not sure that any concepts mediated through the human mind could possibly be unbiased but that might be a separate conversation.)
"I think Europeans tend to see that the only Superpower in the world is "for" Israel and "against" Palestine."
I'm not surprised that such is the view in Europe, since we have the reverse view, as I mentioned. There is certainly some talking past each other going on here.
And, yes, I agree with you on the consquences of free speech, which was the point of the post. The consequences may be justified and they may be unjustified, but there are consequences. What I wanted to do in this post is push back against the notion that free speech means that no one should have to account for what they say, whether they speak the truth or propagate propaganda.
I strongly disagree with what Helen Thomas said and find no defense for her attrocious anti-Jewish tirade. I suspect that early-stage dementia added to her hateful spewings.
Such doesn't change my view that Congress is overwhelming indifferent to the suffering of the Palestinians and favoring of Israel almost without condition or qualification.
Yes, I do think if Mel Gibson had said about Palestinians what he said about Jews there would have been much less controversy.
Israel has, in AIPAC, a bunch of thugs masquerading as defenders of Israeli-American relationships. However, they will get what they want by any means, however unethical and often however illegal. AIPAC has encouraged the theft of U.S. intellectually property as well as the breach of classified U.S. information.
In my opinion, the Isreali leadership treats the Palestinians as little more than human dung and nothing will change unless the U.S. insists it change.
Other things must change, too. Arab and/or Muslim countries must do their part for a workable solution. Off the record, many of their leadership prefers the current state of affairs for propaganda reasons. True advocacy by them of an independent Palestinian state would reveal the "emporer has no clothes" bankruptcy of current Middle Eastern country exploitation of the Palestinian situation for selfish political gain. Egypt alone could do much to solve the crisis but doesn't want to lose a wedge issue. Saudi Arabia? A bunch of rich, uncaring, and often spoiled royalty who are little concerned about the Palestinians. Libya? Horrible leadership on the issue. Ditto for Syria and on and on. Overall, a shocking collection of holocaust deniers and history "know-nothings."
Post a Comment