pitubll bitch is also Bill of Rights Expert

[boutons_]

Palin: First Amendment Rights Threatened By Criticism (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/31/palin-criticism-threatens_n_139729.html)

The Huffington Post
Rachel Weiner
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/46528/thumbs/s-SPALIN-large.jpg

ABC News reports (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/palin-fears-med.html):
In a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by "attacks" from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.

Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.

"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."
Salon's Glenn Greenwald explains (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/31/palin/index.html) why this argument is frighteningly wrong:
If anything, Palin has this exactly backwards, since one thing that the First Amendment does actually guarantee is a free press. Thus, when the press criticizes a political candidate and a Governor such as Palin, that is a classic example of First Amendment rights being exercised, not abridged.

This isn't only about profound ignorance regarding our basic liberties, though it is obviously that. Palin here is also giving voice here to the standard right-wing grievance instinct: that it's inherently unfair when they're criticized. And now, apparently, it's even unconstitutional.

According to Palin, what the Founders intended with the First Amendment was that political candidates for the most powerful offices in the country and Governors of states would be free to say whatever they want without being criticized in the newspapers. The First Amendment was meant to ensure that powerful political officials would not be "attacked" in the papers.

It is even possible to imagine more breathaking ignorance from someone holding high office and running for even higher office?

============

She's so fucking ignorant, extreme mediocrity, terminally solipsistic, aka, the ideal conservative/Repug dumbed-down candidate.

[Shastafarian]

*sigh*

I would consider voting Republican one of these days if they stopped parading out morons as their candidates.

[KenMcCoy]

This is taken out of context IMO. It looks as if she is talking about her first amendment rights (freedom of speech) and not the press' first amendment rights (freedom of press). I could be wrong though.

[Shastafarian]

This is taken out of context IMO. It looks as if she is talking about her first amendment rights (freedom of speech) and not the press' first amendment rights (freedom of press). I could be wrong though.

So what? How is calling what she's doing "negative" impinging on her rights?

[JohnnyMarzetti]

You are wrong and so is VP wannabe Palin. Women got all excited for naught.

[KenMcCoy]

So what? How is calling what she's doing "negative" impinging on her rights?

Basically by saying that if people running for office feel that they can't ask honest questions about people they are running against, than they may eventually "feel" that their first amendment rights are being impeded upon.

My last attempt at an explanation...it's hard enough to understand her run on sentences much less defend them.

[Shastafarian]

Basically by saying that if people running for office feel that they can't ask honest questions about people they are running against, than they may eventually "feel" that their first amendment rights are being impeded upon.

My last attempt at an explanation...it's hard enough to understand her run on sentences much less defend them.

Fair enough.

[PixelPusher]

Basically by saying that if people running for office feel that they can't ask honest questions about people they are running against, than they may eventually "feel" that their first amendment rights are being impeded upon.

My last attempt at an explanation...it's hard enough to understand her run on sentences much less defend them.

Freedom of speech is not a guarantee that you can always "feel" like promoting bullshit/asking honest questions without someone else calling you out on it.

[BushDynasty]

All this time I thought it was the "Fist" Amendment. Shucks.

[hater]

and the hits keep on coming.

[boutons_]

"than they may eventually "feel" that their first amendment rights are being impeded upon."

If a candidate for elective office has problems with their "feelings", fuck 'em.

Nobody is restricting her right to convict HUSSEIN as guilty of bullshit associations.

I imagine if she were in office, she wouldn't give a shit about the "feelings" of people she would intimidate and punish for speaking out against her.

She's already guilty of ethical violations in Alaska for punishing here ex-BIL, and her Alaska can of worms is just getting started.

[KenMcCoy]

"than they may eventually "feel" that their first amendment rights are being impeded upon."

If a candidate for elective office has problems with their "feelings", fuck 'em.

Nobody is restricting her right to convict HUSSEIN as guilty of bullshit associations.

I imagine if she were in office, she wouldn't give a shit about the "feelings" of people she would intimidate and punish for speaking out against her.

She's already guilty of ethical violations in Alaska for punishing here ex-BIL, and her Alaska can of worms is just getting started.

I seem to remember Obama trying to restrict the press or freedom of speech...so I guess he just lost your vote huh?

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/092008/09272008/413770

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/obama-and-the-f.html

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/barack-obama-first-amendment-rights-free-speech-abc-news-april-11-2007-toxic-information-feeding-our-kids-jeremiah-wright/

[boutons_]

I remember Repug goons preventing the press from "associating with" the audiences of pitbull bitch and McNasty.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom of slander. The nature of politics is that slander, esp with the Repugs, is par for the course.

[ChumpDumper]

How can the press possibly take away Palin's freedom of speech?

[The Franchise]

This bitch is just dumb.

[ElNono]

This bitch is just dumb.

+1

[BRHornet45]

son stop hatin ... you know you suffer from "in the closet Palin pride"

[Yonivore]

This is taken out of context IMO. It looks as if she is talking about her first amendment rights (freedom of speech) and not the press' first amendment rights (freedom of press). I could be wrong though.
She's talking about the first amendment. If a press source does the bidding of another for fear of reprisal, it's an infriingement. If it's a government source -- say, a presidential campaign -- it's a constitutional infringement.

“If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, 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 being spun as “her” rights. ABC News, which is fairly balanced, headlined it (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/palin-fears-med.html): “Palin Fears Media Threaten Her First Amendment Rights.”

Reality check: The media watchdogs went after Joe the Plumber for the question rather than Democratic Barack Obama about his Marxist reply.

Why? I guess they don’t want to get kicked off Air Force One (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/31/washington_times_loses_seat_on.html?hpid=topnews).

Why was CNN the last network in Hussein's Iraq?

Startingn to make sense?

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Noting coming out of palin's mouth makes sense.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

You know, there was a time when Republicans lived on the same planet as Democrats. I remember these days happily as being able to call myself an independent. But the Republican agenda just keeps getting more and more absurdist and people like me have to keep moving in line more and more with Democrats just to keep the public dialog based on reality.

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2...9272008/413770 (http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/092008/09272008/413770)

This is a strange story and on the level it opens up some questions. The Obama campaign should have been pressed further on the security side of things. That said, given that Bush doesn't allow protesters with or without signs anywhere near him, it's pretty shaky ground for a Republican to be harping on. Given the fact that there's been at least one plan to kill Obama that we know of, someone being a little over-security conscious is understandable. They weren't barring people from the rally or telling them that they couldn't speak their minds, hand out pamphlets, etc. Just no big signs. It's something they should have been pressed on, most definitely, but hardly an indication that Obama has a worse first amendment position than Bush/McCain. This is only an issue because it took place on public property, had it happened on private property the first amendment wouldn't even apply. And there's some gray area when the city has given a private event temporary dominion over public property over what first amendment rights apply. People should have been allowed to have signs unless the Obama campaign could cite a credible threat they were protecting against.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/obama-and-the-f.html

While I agree this was a bad tactic from a political perspective, it was a perfectly valid legal one. The first amendment does not protect you from libel and slander. And if television stations are legally held responsible when someone says bad words or flashes a nipple, it logically follows that they should be held responsible when they accept libelous or slanderous advertising. Politically it's a stupid move. Legally, it's perfectly valid and doesn't have any significant first amendment implications.

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/20...remiah-wright/ (http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/barack-obama-first-amendment-rights-free-speech-abc-news-april-11-2007-toxic-information-feeding-our-kids-jeremiah-wright/)

"We all have First Amendment rights. And I am a constitutional lawyer and strongly believe in free speech, but as a culture, we really have to do some soul-searching to think about what kind of toxic information are we feeding our kids..."
Translation: We all have first ammendment rights, but there's something wrong with society when walking asshats like Don Imus have people cheering them on. Nothing in this statement is trying to restrict freedom of speech. It's just saying "you have a right to say anything you want, but why would you want to be an asshole?"

Seriously, this was the best you could do for first amendment concerns and Obama? Given the laundry list of Palin/Bush first amendment suppression tactics that don't even flirt with gray area?


If a press source does the bidding of another for fear of reprisal, it's an infriingement. If it's a government source -- say, a presidential campaign -- it's a constitutional infringement.
Freedom of the press is mandated by the first amendment, not press responsibility. The press has the right to say / print whatever is truthful, or that they have cause to believe is truthful, or that which they know is untruthful, but can be credited to a proper source. The responsibily of the press and the obligation of any individual's interactions with the press ends there. It's not a first amendment violation. If it were the entire Bush administration would be in jail.


Reality check: The media watchdogs went after Joe the Plumber for the question rather than Democratic Barack Obama about his Marxist reply.
Reality check: The media investigated Joe the Plumber because McCain made him an icon of his campaign without vetting him and the press found out he was a liar. And whether or not Obama's reply was Marxist had gotten plenty of air play, pretending it hasn't is just silly. The more you try to hoist this guy up as a victim when he's shown himself to be a lying attention whore, the more silly you look.


Why? I guess they don’t want to get kicked off Air Force One.
Room was made to accommodate national press at the expense of local press. One of the press reps understood this as life in the big boy world and the other wrote a crybaby editorial. It looks tacky, but it's hardly a "reprisal." Why don't we list all the press that has been thrown off the McCain campaign and compare notes about it?


Why was CNN the last network in Hussein's Iraq?
Oh, you're one of those people.

[ChumpDumper]

She's talking about the first amendment. If a press source does the bidding of another for fear of reprisal, it's an infriingement. If it's a government source -- say, a presidential campaign -- it's a constitutional infringement.:lmao


This is being spun as “her” rights. ABC News, which is fairly balanced, headlined it (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/palin-fears-med.html): “Palin Fears Media Threaten Her First Amendment Rights.”She called them her rights because she was whining about the media calling her attacks on Obama negative campaigning.


Reality check: The media watchdogs went after Joe the Plumber for the question rather than Democratic Barack Obama about his Marxist reply.

Why? I guess they don’t want to get kicked off Air Force One (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/31/washington_times_loses_seat_on.html?hpid=topnews).

Why was CNN the last network in Hussein's Iraq?

Startingn to make sense?Reality check: Yoni is pretending he is Don Surber.

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2008/10/31/quote-of-the-day/

And it still doesn't make any sense.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

I don't who is dumber...Palin or yoniwhore.

[PixelPusher]

- kneejerk cut-n-paste -

Not a good idea, with the rightwing blogs in full tinfoil hat mode.

[Yonivore]

Not a good idea, with the rightwing blogs in full tinfoil hat mode.
How do you figure? What kind of "tinfoil hat" stuff are you talking about?

This kind of stuff?

Erica Jong Tells Italians Obama Loss 'Will Spark the Second American Civil War. Blood Will Run in the Streets' (http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/erica-jong-tells-italians-obama-loss-will-spark-second-american-civil-war-blood-will-r)

[ChumpDumper]

Erica Jong? Do you know who she is?

She's still alive?

And a left-wing blogger?

Seriously Yoni, you are losing it. No one has ever mentioned Erica Jong in the political forum until some blog told you to.

[PixelPusher]

How do you figure? What kind of "tinfoil hat" stuff are you talking about?

Ayers wrote Obama's book!
(http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html)

Obama is really Malcolm X's love child! (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/how-could-stanl.html)

[Yonivore]

Ayers wrote Obama's book!
(http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html)

Obama is really Malcolm X's love child! (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/how-could-stanl.html)
I've advanced neither of those theories and, further, haven't seen any of them given any credence in any of the blogs I read.

But, how 'bout this from Daily Kos!

Final GOTV Push: No Time for Shyness (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/29/212558/98/530/646276)

Just a bit weird, if you ask me.

Then, if you take into consideration all the "tin foil" hat stuff raised about Vice Presidential Candidate Palin and her son Trig -- by some fairly "reputable" leftwing blogs...I think y'all take the prize on "tin foil" hat crap.

[ChumpDumper]

I've advanced neither of those theories and, further, haven't seen any of them given any credence in any of the blogs I read.Yeah, we've all been talking nonstop about Jong :rolleyes.

But, how 'bout this from Daily Kos!

Final GOTV Push: No Time for Shyness

Just a bit weird, if you ask me.What's weird about it?

What's weird is that you read the Daily Kos more closely than any lliberal here.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I seem to remember Obama trying to restrict the press or freedom of speech...so I guess he just lost your vote huh?

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/092008/09272008/413770

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/obama-and-the-f.html

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/barack-obama-first-amendment-rights-free-speech-abc-news-april-11-2007-toxic-information-feeding-our-kids-jeremiah-wright/

:lol

I think I just heard boutons's head explode.

[FromWayDowntown]

While I don't know that a presidential campaign -- acting as a non-governmental entity -- can do anything to actually interfere with First Amendment rights of a person acting on behalf of another campaign (campaigns can't MAKE law, after all), I'm sure that the decisions that the press makes in characterizing Palin's speech are protected from any governmental infringement by the First Amendment. If Palin doesn't like that, her recourse is to argue that the press is wrong -- if she's right, is her recourse to have the government create a law that forbids the press from mischaracterizing her view? Of course not. Hell, for that matter, if Palin believes that she's right, that the press is maliciously wrong, and that the press is injuring her in some manifest way, her recourse is to seek damages for libel or slander -- not to whine for misapplication of the First Amendment.

[ElNono]

While I don't know that a presidential campaign -- acting as a non-governmental entity -- can do anything to actually interfere with First Amendment rights of a person acting on behalf of another campaign (campaigns can't MAKE law, after all), I'm sure that the decisions that the press makes in characterizing Palin's speech are protected from any governmental infringement by the First Amendment. If Palin doesn't like that, her recourse is to argue that the press is wrong -- if she's right, is her recourse to have the government create a law that forbids the press from mischaracterizing her view? Of course not. Hell, for that matter, if Palin believes that she's right, that the press is maliciously wrong, and that the press is injuring her in some manifest way, her recourse is to seek damages for libel or slander -- not to whine for misapplication of the First Amendment.

You need to understand how the law works to do that... apparently she doesn't...