Dumber Than a Box of Alaskan Rocks

This is what "Talkie Sarah" Palin said today:

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."

Emphasis added.  Lets look at the actual text of the First Amendment:

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.

First point:  The First Amendment prevents Congress from abridging freedom of speech or freedom of the press.  Therefore, the First Amendment protects the people's right to speak their mind without unwarranted government intervention, e.g., don't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.  The legal standard any governmental measure must meet if it seeks to curtail speech is pretty high.  Not impossible, but pretty close to it.

Second point: The "freedom of press" clause is pretty much indistiguishable from an individual's freedom of speech.  As noted here,

Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.

In other words, if I have the right to call out Palin because I believe she's engaging in negative campaigning, so can the press.  The fact that they have a bigger megaphone than I do only makes them louder.

Like I've always said: freedom of speech does not equal freedom from criticism.  And it's particularly scary that someone who would be so close to being president is not aware of that.

Comments

[La Ventanita]

Maybe she was referring to intimidation? Sort of what happen to Joe for asking a question...

There are people (many) that believe that the press attacks people in an effort to keep them quiet, not as criticism.

In any case it is not the press' place to attack anyone; media should report the facts objectively and ask questions. Criticisms, that's what editorials are for.

Personally, I don't think she is dumb. I think she has been heavily badhandled and put in the spotlight before her time. On the positive side, she's very genuine, in that more than any politicians in recent years she represents a large portion of America.

[El Loco]

LV, there are reporters and there are "news analysts." If a "news analyst" wants to criticize whoever for whatever reason, then they can do it.

In her case, some people believe bringing up the Ayers/Wright thing is going negative because Obama addressed both issues already. You either take him at his word or not. Besides, people - reporters or otherwise - have the right to tell candidates "I'm not interested in hearing what you have to say about this because these other issues are more relevant to us."

The bottom line is that this is not a First Amendment/free speech/freedom of the press issue. This is just Palin upset because the press won't take her message and pass it forward without thinking twice about it.

If that's what she wants, she can always go to FOX.

[La Ventanita]

Besides, people - reporters or otherwise - have the right to tell candidates "I'm not interested in hearing what you have to say about this because these other issues are more relevant to us."
I don't think she was talking exclusively about herself/candidates; I believe she was talking about regular people being able to question politicians without fear of being attacked by the media. That is what I was referring to.

In any case, which is why I told you that I think she represents a large majority of Americans, I know many Americans who claim First Amendment rights when ANYONE tries to control their speech, and NOT as a figure of speech; but sincerely.

Anyway, I'm just glad this thing is coming to a close in a couple of days; I don't think I can take one more political ad, or stump speech.

[El Loco]

If you're referring about JTP, we've been over this before. He walked onto that stage and stayed there. Once you do that, you're not just "a guy."

I know many Americans who claim First Amendment rights when ANYONE tries to control their speech, and NOT as a figure of speech; but sincerely.

It depends on what your idea of "control" is. If you say something and people jump on what you said and accuse you of being X or Y, well, that's their free speech right too! If I make a comment that you consider sexist, why should you shut up instead of telling me that I'm a sexist pig? You have as much right to say your piece as I do.

But I guess we can agree to disagree on both these issues.

Anyway, I'm just glad this thing is coming to a close in a couple of days; I don't think I can take one more political ad, or stump speech.

Amen to that!!!