Palin and the First Amendment

Clearly very few people actually listen to Palin any more, including most Republicans (not counting her far right "fan base.") She simply doesn't understand enough to offer anything of substantive value. The media really only cover her because 1) She is the VP nominee so they kind of have to, and 2) She provides both laugh appeal and venom appeal, both of which are good for ratings.

I chuckle when I hear people talk about her being the future of the party. It's her part of the part that has destroyed the Republican principles that used to be so strong. Once they lose this election the party will have to reevaluate itself, and it's doubtful they will line up behind the same extreme wing that is the cause of their downfall. No, Rovian politics will have to take a back seat to rational and principled politics. For 2012 I would expect the Republicans to nominate someone more skilled in governance, less ideological, and more pragmatically capable of leadership (such as Mitt Romney if he's still interested).

Amazing. I would, however take exception with the idea that no one is listening to Palin. Some 7,000 people turned out to hear her in Erie, Pa., yesterday, and she is slowly "snaking her way" across PA in a bus tour. Snaking, used by CBS in its headline, couldn't be more appropriate.

They are using the sleaziest attacks in the history of political campaigning to prey on people who live in rural communities across our state.

The media has the obligation to question utter nonsense spoken by Palin. The Fourth Estate was created by the First Amendment. Sarah Palin doesn't fall short about the responsibilities under the First Amendment. We have the right of free speech but we also are entitled to a free press in this country. The media is not attacking when they question something that is obviously not true. When did the Republicans become such victims? They used to claim that that was the purview of the liberals.

Great point!

"you don't have the right to criticize me criticizing" is what she is saying. She can't see that and I bet people agreeing with her can't see that. They have no idea what the First Amemdment is about.

David, very well said. I am Mitt Romney voter. In 2000, I voted for McCain. He decided to realign himself with the wing that defeated him. He did not take me with him.

The party left me. These people are out of control. The country is evolving and they are not seeing it. Some deep soul searching is needed and they won't do it until they lose badly.

So she is the only one who is aloud to be negative? Would she be the pot or the kettle?

lol Palin says it and the media prints it so how is that infringement on her first amendment rights lol.

Lies from the wing nut side of the republican party are not covered under the first amendment rights. Slander is a criminal offense and if they were not campaigning McCain and Palin would be wearing straight jackets now.

"Keep talking Sarah. The more you do, the more you show your limits not only of basic understanding of the constitution, but your brain limit."

Exactly why the GOP campaign will not let her do any straight interviews. All she is good at is delivering snarky, pre-written and rehearsed speeches. I love it when The Daily Show shows her making the same speech in about 10 different locations - same wink, same words, same snarky questions, "Do we really know who Obama really is? *wink, wink*". She's a total joke. Now, she's whining about HER rights to free speech when she is called on her total inanity? Ha!

Linda, please cite credible news sources if you are going to make things up about "Secret Service" agents harassing people for hanging up their phones. No internet blogs...real news coverage from real, credible sources. Otherwise, remain quiet.

Linda,

I don't think that the Obama campaign (or Obama) has that kind of pull with the Secret Service. Liberals do not run this country. The conservatives have been largely in charge for several years, although that is changing. Thank God it's changing because the conservative values haven't worked out for the country. It's time to try some new ideas.

By the way, Linda. Colleges and universities are much more concerned with the learning and development needs of their students than imparting any particular philosophy on them. Just because college educated people tend to be able to weed out the nonsense does not mean that they were influenced by liberals. They were influenced by thinkers.

I am all for debating. Clearly this woman copies and pastes. That's not a discussion. I've presented why Palin claim is ridiculous in my point of view. I have not heard why it is not. I am looking forward to.

Even so, the examples illustrate what? That liberals are a danger to free speech. Ok, that makes Palin correct.

Moving on. Hopefully there is someone from the other side who thinks Palin is correct and has a brain to explain.

Definitely the Queen of the repugnicon morons.

Linda could be court jester.

Alan - It seems Palin should be more concerned about what people on her own side are saying about her. Listen to the radio link to hear what former Secretary of State (under Bush I) Lawrence Eagleburger had to say about Palin's readiness (or not) to take over President if something happens to McCain:

Of Course Not

Seems like an interesting statement in this final weekend before election day.

I think this is just another one of her misinterpretations of the Constitution.

What Palin does not understand, and what we all should understand, is that political speech is protected more stringently than any other type of speech. In fact, any ridiculous lies she herself reels off in her political speeches or advertising are completely protected against any kind of "truth in advertising" or libel claims--because of these Constitutional protections of speech about public people and institutions. Back in 1964, the Supreme Court said: "public men, are, as it were, public property," and "discussion cannot be denied and the right, as well as the duty, of criticism must not be stifled."

They went on to quote Justice Brandeis, in an earlier opinion (Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375 -376):

"Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law - the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed."

The Court went on to say in 1964: "Thus we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."

Source: U.S. Supreme Court: NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. SULLIVAN, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=376&invol=254

Thanks Dave A,

I did not know any of this to the level you explained it and provided examples. It just struck me that you could not call for your free speech right while supressing someone else's.

I thought you said it well in your article and thanks for it, Alan.

The case referenced above involved a suit filed by public officials in Alabama against those who placed a critical ad in the New York Times, and against the Times itself. Palin's rant is reminiscent of the diatribes by Jesse (the Body) Ventura against members of the media. Kind of forgot his role and responsibilities as a public official.

www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=2427

Obviously Sarah doesn't understand just what freedom of speech is! No media has any restriction and is free to criticize, pass on bad information, fail to report or anything they desire. It may not be right but it is within the constitution. People used to buy newspapers so they could control the information published and make it totally partisan. My dad's home town newspaper was called"The Cedar County Republican." There was a reason.

This comment is to let you know that this content has reached at least ten comments, and as such has been removed from Comment Speedway! Congratulations!