Friday, August 20, 2010

Sarah Palin's First Amendment Confusion Deepens.

Palin shows, once again, that she doesn't understand the First Amendment and she does it this time in an attempt to back Dr Laura's racist outburst.

She also did this during the election campaign when she stated:

"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."
Palin appears to think that anyone who offers a different point of view to her own is attempting to silence her and that this constitutes a removal of her First Amendment rights.

Glenn Greenwald explained at the time just how backwards Palin had got this:
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?
This is exactly the same nonsense which Dr Laura is now claiming. It is apparently unconstitutional to question right wingers now.

UPDATE:



Cenk had a good take on this during the last election when she first made this complaint. And the point made here about victim status is important, as that is exactly what Dr Laura has claimed. It is she who is the victim of other people's hypersensitivity about race in her mind.
'I'm done trying to help people in a situation where my First Amendment rights don't exist, where special interest groups and activists can make a decision to silence you. It's not American, it's not fair play."
You see, she was only "trying to help" by telling a black woman that she shouldn't marry out of her race if she was "hypersensitive about colour" and didn't have a sense of humour.

Her motives were pure and special interest groups set out to ruin her. That victim mentality which she is displaying is breathtaking.

UPDATE II:

It's strange that this is what Dr Laura talks about on her blog:
Take Responsibility for your mistake. Make an immediate apology.

Show true Remorse. Don't try to explain away your action or defend it.
She's done nothing but blame other people for their hypersensitivity ever since she used the N-word.

UPDATE III:



This woman gets it in one. The First Amendment prevents the government from stopping citizens or the press from saying things that it doesn't like. You know, like when George W. Bush tried to stop The New York Times from telling everyone that he was listening in on them illegally.

It guarantees your right to free speech but it doesn't guarantee that there won't be any consequences which might arise when you avail yourself of that right; like sponsors deciding you are toxic for their product and that sponsoring you might harm what they sell.

Capitalism in action. Profits come before all else. Dr Laura and Sarah Palin are supposed to revel in capitalism. What gives?

UPDATE IV:

This made me laugh. Dr Laura is complaining that people are trying to silence her and that people used to be interested in debate and dialogue.

I was watching several of her YouTube videos today and they all seem to have this same notice attached.
Adding comments has been disabled for this video.
That's some search she's on for debate and dialogue.

1 comment:

Montana said...

I am so happy that the ugly (inside and out) crazy old gym teacher reaped what she had sowed. She could have gotten her argument across by saying “N word” and not using the word and by not saying “don’t NAACP me” but like Michael Richards AKA “Cosmo Kramer”, she ends up the trash heap of history, a history of her own making. I am so happy that the free market AKA sponsors started to pull their ads (I guess they were exercising their free speech) and she finally realized that she was just another “run of the mill gabby” and her days were numbered. She realized that she was not as smart as she thought she was, finally! The first three times she used the word might not have been in anger but the last eight she was filled with hate, so good riddance.

Palin was the one who got bent over the use of the word “Retard” (she wanted someone fired for using it once), Palin also said that the people have the right to build the Mosque in NY, but out of respect for the 9/11 families they shouldn’t, but I guess this same standard is not applicable to Laura Schlessinger. Do you see the hypocrisy? The problem with Palin is the same when she mistakenly referred to Ronald Reagan Eureka College, being in California and we all know its in Illinois, same thing, she does not fact check anything she is going to say. She is soooo Palin!

http://vodpod.com/watch/3933949-keith-olbermann-mocks-sarah-palins-imbecility-stupidity-video

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-24-2010/the-hurt-talker

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhGk6eF65Fo