On blogs and in the comments sections of most of the major newspapers around the country today, Helen Thomas’s retirement has been disparaged countless times as a sign that free speech in America is dead. A careful study of word choice, though, will prove that charge is unfounded.
In the Constitution’s First Amendment, the pertinent language actually reads “Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech, or of the press…” We have, subsequently, morphed the expression, “freedom of speech” into “free speech,” which tends to encourage the idea that speech — of any kind — is without cost. The more apt term would be “free to speak.” And that’s a different matter. Nowhere does the Constitution state or imply that the exercise of freedom of speech must happen without any consequence.
Thus, whether or not you agree with the sentiments of Ms. Thomas in regard to the dispensation of the Jewish population of Israel, or with the actions taken by Hearst Inc., or proposed by the White House Correspondents Association, one cannot claim that her First Amendment rights were abridged.
Only if, based on her comments, the government were to incarcerate her, or otherwise abridge her freedom, would that claim be justified.
The fact that many have disagreed with her vehemently, and many have defended her with as much passion—with no government intervention into the discourse—is a sign that freedom of speech is alive and well.
Those who have condemned her critics, chastised her employer, and chided the professional association conferring her prestigious front-row-center seat in the White House Press Briefing Room — claiming that they have smothered her “right to free speech” are mistaken.
If you were to walk up to your boss, regardless of where you work, and call him or her an idiot still endowed with a prehensile tail, or some such, he or she cannot have you arrested or otherwise ask any government entity to abridge your freedom. But he or she certainly can fire your bad self.
Were Ms. Thomas’s detractors’, her employer’s and the WHCA’s reactions and decisions prudent, balanced, and well-thought-out? That is a legitimate area for debate.
But, just as she had a right to express her opinion when and as she wished, they had a right to react to it as they wished, within the bounds of law.
In short, the Constitution guarantees we are free to speak; it does not guarantee we can speak with impunity.