Palin tries pervert the first Amendment because she can't handle the criticism

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Nov 4, 2008.

  1. ABC News reports:

    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 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?
  2. Palin did not know what the VP did when asked by a young student, what makes you think she understands the first amendment?

    She seems to think the reason dinosaurs went extinct was that there was not enough room on the Ark.

  3. 50_Bip


    That's it.. I am voting for Obama!
  4. Palin's comments were accurate and needed. The media seem to believe the First Amendment is a kind of government subsidy for their enormous businesses. Freedom of the press is just one of the freedoms guaranteed by the Amendment however. The media undermine those other freedoms when they use freedom of the press as a sword to attack them.

    Palin is concerned with a core First Amendment value, political speech. That value is threatened by irresponsible media coverage. If any candidate who says something that is out of step with the media's line is viciously attacked, obviously it will have a chilling effect on free wheeling political speech. Since this campaing has established something of a high water mark for media bias, the threat is magnified.

    In fact, this campaign has seen the range of targets for media retribution extended from just candidates to ordinary citizens who happen to embarrass the media's chosen candidate. Ordinary citizens are afraid to ask tough questions, lest their entire lives become fodder for media gossip and government scrutiny.

    The whole idea that "negative" ads are somehow out of bounds is crazy as well. Most negative ads merely point out a candidate's past votes, statements or actions. Isn't that far more telling than what he says during a campaign? Apparently, the media don't think so, at least when the subject is one Barrack Obama.
  5. What did the commie countries first do?

    Control the media and keep them from printing anything that attacked the free ideas that ran counter to those in power or running for power.

    You sir, are a fascist...

    Palin is just plain stupid, with you there is only the excuse of a fascist nature and years of being programmed by the ideologies and demagoguery of Fatbaugh and his ilk.

    The media is free to say whatever they want, anyone can sue them if what they print is slanderous.

    Palin can sue the media if what they print is false.

    This is the way the system works, not the way you would have it work.

    Those who want to control the media in any way, want to control what people can read, which means they want to control what the people can think.

    Nowhere in the media did anyone say that Palin did not have the right to say what she said, Palin has the right to say what she wants, the media has the right to cover it or not, Fox has the right to be a right wing News organization, CNN has the right to be a left wing news organization.

    Nothing is wrong with the media, what is wrong is that you and your zombie brownshirts don't have control of the media, which is what you really long for.

    Your constant attacks on the media, blame on the media is the nature of your fascist thinking, where you don't what people exposed to ideas that you don't like or opinions that you don't share.

    You are as far from a real American as I can think of.

    You belong in Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union working for Pravda, or anywhere else where you have full control over others and what they can think, say, and do.

    You are a disgusting representative of the ugly side of politics and how people will put their own party and platform over what is best for the people, which is freedom of speech, freedom to turn the channel.

    I detest what Limbaugh does, Hannity, all of them, but I defend their right to do it.

    That's the difference between real patriotism and fascism...

    You don't want what is best for America, you want what you think is best for your idea of what America should be for others...

  6. kut2k2


    Typical Limbaugh bullshit. Going years back, Rush has always acted like any criticism of him is an infringement on his freedom of speech.

    Attention, reichtards: freedom of speech does not include freedom from criticism. You don't hesitate to criticize people you don't agree with, wtf should you be exempt from the same reaction?

    Nothing but fucking whiners and crybabies on the right pretending to be tough guys and gals. You're all pathetic, and your reign of terror is coming to an end.
  7. wjk


    So you don't have a problem with media outlets that might be critical being removed from venues to make room for those that are favorable to a candidate, or a president, etc? I guess it's ok if it's media that you happen to agree with. That's how it starts.
  8. Private groups can keep the media out of their private meetings.

    The media can then report that.

    I am not aware that the media is barred from anything that is of a public nature.

    All the media has to do is report that the media is generally being abused by some source, or that media is being favored by some source, and they are doing their job.

    Then those who watch the media can make up their own mind, and change the channel.

    No one was forced to watch Fox News, yet Fox News overtook CNN in many ways.

    This is the fault of whom?

    Nobody, it is the free market, of which the media is an important component.

    The media reports, the people decide, and we have plenty of sources for media these days, the MSM, cable news, blogs, the internet, talk radio...there really is no problem at all that I can see. The only problem would be the government trying in any way to block the media from what it can lawfully do.

  9. kut2k2


    McCain did the same thing to Maureen Dowd. Frankly, riding on the campaign plane is a privilege, not a right, and as long as reporters aren't blocked from public venues (a campaign plane is not a public venue), I have absolutely no problem with a candidate picking and choosing among reporters for getting the privilege to fly along.
  10. wjk


    I will agree with you on this point. The info is out there for those who are interested enough to look, and to those who have access. As more people realize that they need to dig to get the truth the MSM will fade into the sunset, as it should. In my opinion, the MSM has failed the people who are too lazy to think for themselves and to learn who their politicians are and what they stand for. I've always said, and will say again: I don't fault politicians for who they are. I fault the media for how they report, or more importantly, what they don't report. Like you said, it's out there for those who want to know.
    #10     Nov 4, 2008