"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."
Glenn Greenwald (from Salon ) puts Palin's perspective in perspective.
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......
...... 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 comments:
You got there first! I was contemplating putting something about this up. Instead, I think I'll go with Joel's Army.
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/002664.html
The above link gives the actual audio of her first amendment comment; as far as I can tell, she says that it is her first amendment right to attach Obama for association with "terrorists" but the media does not have a right to call her out on it. Facism, wrapped in a flag, to misquote someone famous.
Post a Comment