Shorter Palin: “Constitution what now?”
Apparently disagreeing with Palin puts you at odds with the Constitution.
Political Radar: Palin Fears Media Threaten Her First Amendment Rights
“If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations,” Palin told host Chris Plante, “then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.”
This is so abysmally wrong, so tragically misunderstanding of what our FIRST GODDAMN AMENDMENT is, that I am not going to insult your intelligence or waste my time explaining why. I’m just going to present it as something she said and continue to silently nurse this ulcer that will continue to grow until Nov 4th.
October 31st, 2008 19:31
Well, since she and hubby are secessionists — or at least play them on teevee — it’s unsurprising she would not trouble herself to understand the US Constitution in any great depth.
I would say she was bonkers, but she’s not even that. She’s a droid — an empty Valentino Garavani jacket. Pull her string and out comes whatever she’s been filled with, whether it’s Republican gibberish or tomorrow’s weather forecast. If nothing else, she has a great future on Fox “News”.
In other news… New Scribs panel! YAY!!
October 31st, 2008 22:12
Heh. Yeah I drew that like three months ago. I figured I might as well finally post it while it has some relevance.
October 31st, 2008 22:28
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
She is not a secessionist…and if her point was that questioning someone’s past associations can not be talked about in the open without reprisal or talk of things like the return of the Fairness Doctrine then we are headed towards more violations of that amendment.
October 31st, 2008 23:12
Are you saying she had a legitimate point?
November 1st, 2008 01:30
spinn, please stop entertaining his delusions.
November 1st, 2008 03:33
Mike: So it’s respecting First Amendment rights to allow her to say whatever she wants, but not to allow her critics to say whatever they want. Why, yes, that makes perfect sense!
Note that this isn’t about people telling her she has no right to speak, it’s about people describing what she’s saying as “negative campaigning”. (You may want to re-read some of that… the bits with the quotation marks around them usually denote things that people actually said. You’ll find it often paints a more accurate description of what a person said than reading the first word and then making up your own narrative that bears little resemblance to reality.)
So let’s say I called you a rock-brained dunderfuck. Then someone else in the comments — perhaps you — told me that I was being negative, or using ad hominem attacks. By your logic, then, they are suppressing my First Amendment rights, and their First Amendment rights should be suppressed because I’m an oversensitive moron who can’t string together a cogent response to a simple question and has no business running for the second-highest office in the country.
November 1st, 2008 03:38
Er, but that’s all beside the point, really: The person running for the vice presidency on the Republican ticket — the one you support, by the way — clearly has no idea what the First Amendment is, apparently believing violations involve people just being critical of what other people say. Now THAT is something that ACTUALLY paints a frightening picture for the future of the First Amendment.
November 1st, 2008 10:49
Palin’s a tool. Has anyone else figured out that picking her was a McCain ‘chess move’ to scoop up the feminine vote after Hilary didn’t make the nomination? At least that’s how it appears to me, regardless of being two different political parties.
I think she has the right to negatively campaign. For her to say that this is a 1st amendment violation is rather shortsighted – the media has been sending people’s words askew for decades and decades. In an odd twist, as much as Sarah has the freedom to say what she wants, the media has the same EXACT freedom to say what THEY want. Our constitution was written long before a mainstream media, there’s not really any rules on what they do and don’t have to publish.
And mind you, she can say anything with being arrested. Anything. That’s all her constitution grants her. It never requires any news source to publish it in full. Just as the media can say anything they want without persecution.
In summary – Sarah’s full of shit. But I’d totally do her.
November 1st, 2008 12:05
Depends on what your point was, spinn?
Listening to the whole interview I think her point was that others (the media) were attempting to squash her points about Sen Obama’s associations as they were categorizing them as negative. Look at the in-depth investigation done on ‘Joe the plumber’…that type of scare tactic is meant to stop others from questioning the designated soon-to-be next president (Sen Obama). This type of behavior by anyone (esp the media) WILL impact anyone’s first amendment rights to freedom of speech.
And what I am more concerned about is the return of the Fairness Doctrine since the spin is that all of this ‘negative’ campaigning is just bad for the political process and we need more balance. That kind of thinking was already proven to be a violation of the first amendment…and by now there are plenty of outlets to get information whether you are liberal, conservative, christian, republican, democrat, moron, smarty pants, etc….
November 1st, 2008 13:00
Dude.
You went right past several comments explaining what the First Amendment actually means, and then you still don’t know.
Okay, I’m going to infringe on your First Amendment rights. Stop posting in my blog, please, I can’t tolerate you anymore.
November 1st, 2008 13:59
Oh, lighten up, spinn. Once Mike figures out that what he’s really complaining about is self-censorship and the chilling effect, we ACLU-apologists in the audience are really going to have some fun.
November 1st, 2008 17:29
That’s not trampling on First Amendment rights. I’m sure you understand this, but a lot of left-wingers don’t. They think they have a “free speech” right on private property. They don’t.
I agree with you that Palin is full of shit, but there’s a lot of misunderstanding of the First Amendment on both sides of the aisle.
November 1st, 2008 19:51
If Mike’s still poking around, I’d like him to explain how Entity A categorizing the words of Entity B as “negative” is an infringement of First Amendment rights, and how his copy-paste of the First Amendment in any way addresses any of the points anyone has brought up.
Of course, he tends to just ignore me anyway because apparently the highest level of intellectual parry he can muster is to convince himself that dismissing me flippantly is the same thing as winning, so I’m not sure why I’m even bothering.
November 1st, 2008 22:37
dude the trap’s no good if you point right at it
November 2nd, 2008 18:02
Yeah, except I don’t think he’s the only one that would be caught.
November 3rd, 2008 00:51
Yah, whatever. I mean, I agree with you, there’s a lot of misconception.
Ahh, okay, now that it’s blown anyway, let me just point to this thing that bugged me ever since I read it. It’s not the same topic, but it feels kinda similar.Story summary: guy who owns a parking lot posts a sign that says Obama supporters aren’t welcome. Laughs off a suggestion that he might be violent about it.
C&L commentary summary: “Racist!” Which is just stupid, and it’s irritating when someone just leaves their bias out like that. A few commenters stood out for reason, saying if the guy owns the lot and wants to be a dick, he’s free to be a dick–but for the most part people seemed to jump on the “racist!” bandwagon.
I had the same frustrated feeling about this as I have for posts on conservative sites. I could post something and tell them what idiots they’re being, but why bother? I’d be just one voice in the wilderness that they won’t hear anyway.
November 3rd, 2008 11:03
sorry spinn…
November 3rd, 2008 19:01
Criticism from the media is a violation of the First amendment? The hell?
1- The Constitutions says nothing about the media, and everything in it is about the Government.
2- The media are not saying she cannot say what she says, they even happily quote her stupidity, but that what she says makes no sense or completely wrong. They certainly aren’t saying she does not have the right to speak…
Though I wish she would stop to speak someday. But that’s only wishful thinking.