Palin confuses First Amendment protections

I’m SO TIRED of reading about people who claim the First Amendment is being trampled on just because citizens express an opinion different from their own. There should be some sort of galactic buzzer that goes off and forces these people to the ground writhing in pain every time they do this.

As far as I can tell, a citizen expressing an opinion (or even a news agency expressing opinion) is NOT a violation of anyone’s FIRST AMENDMENT rights.

“Well, that calling for the boycott is a real – has a chilling effect on our 1st Amendment rights,” Palin told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren. “And the owner of the Chick-fil-A business had merely voiced his personal opinion about supporting traditional definition of marriage, one boy, one girl, falling in love, getting married. And having voiced support for kind of that cornerstone of all civilization and all religions since the beginning of time, he then basically [is] getting crucified.” ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/sarah-palin-chick-fil-a-boycott_n_1727965.html?utm_hp_ref=politics )

SECONDLY - suffering the opinions of others is NOT CRUCIFIXION! Crist did not succumb to vapors because the Romans all stood around and talked poorly about him. And I’m sure that the Chick-Fil-A President is not in danger of physically dying from this little bru-haha.

The only thing she left out was the socialism and Hitler references!

ETA: I really want to see this distinction beaten into the heads of every child and adult within the US!

Wow, I could make a better first-amendment argument than that, by bringing up the Boston and Chicago politicians who are holding back Chik-Fil-A. But voluntary, non-governmentally sponsored boycotts have jack all to do with the 1st amendment.

That’s an excellent First Amendment argument, actually.

If anything, this whole situation is a celebration of free speech. Dan Cathy gets to say whatever he wants in public; those who disagree with what he says get to tell him so with their wallets. Yay, free market!

Palin, as many easily outraged people tend to do, also seems to have missed that little part of the First Amendment that says “Congress shall make no law.” It’s right there at the beginning. I wasn’t aware that Congress was involved in this.

Typical SDMB liberal. At least you have the courage to admit you want to see children rounded up and beaten until they agree with you.

No – but the First Amendment is incorporated against the states too. So when Chicago Alderman Proco Joe Moreno and Mayor Rahm Emanuel announce that they will block Chick-Fil-A from getting additional Chicago locations because of their owner’s opposition to same-sex marriage, that does in fact implicate the First Amendment.

If Palin had hired me as a consultant she’d be Vice-President now.

I’m not sure. Many communities control the commerce allowed to operate and what areas they are allowed to operate in. That is common zoning laws. As an example, you can’t open up a porn shop or gas station anywhere you want. Communities have rejected Walmart and similar stores as undesirable.

Except that Obama would never have chosen her.

Insisting on comprehension of the basics of the Constitution is liberal? Or is it the distinction between Government actions and those of a citizen?

Yeah, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what Palin was talking about, does it?

Eh, using “crucified” as a synonym for being subject to extreme verbal criticism is a pretty common usage. Can’t really blame Palin for the vagrancies of the English language.

Trying to zone against a company due to the political actions of its owners is pretty clearly not the same thing though, and wouldn’t survive a court challenge. The Mayor of Boston already admitted he probably can’t actually follow through on his threat (not sure about Emmanuel).

But Chicago can’t refuse to permit CF from opening an branch because of the religious beliefs of CF’s owners.

It should be noted that Rom Emanual and those other government officials who were threatening to not allow CF to open a branch simply because the owners disagree with SSM are also ignorant of the first amendment. Palin is certainly being stupid here, but there is more stupid to go around than there outta be.

Would you suppose they’d actually need to take action to hold back Chik Fil A before you can come up with an argument.

I keep hearing how politicians are holding back Chik Fil A, but so so their is no evidence of that.

So far they’ve expressed opinions. Do you think their first amendment rights should be limited because they are public officials?

True, but I don’t see any indication that Palin was talking specifically about Moreno and Emanuel, and not the drive to boycott Chik-Fil-A in general. Is there a portion of her comments that specifies that shes talking about those two people in particular?

He was responding to a poster who said “Congress wasn’t involved with this”. Congress doesn’t have to be involved for it to be a 1st amendment issue because of the incorporation of the 1st amendment. Sometimes posters are responding to other posters and not the OP.

It seems a lot of people think freedom of speech means saying whatever you want without criticism or consequences.

And he didn’t “merely voice his opinion”, he is trying to have his opinion forced onto others via law, by giving money to organizations fighting for those laws.

That’s the line for me. If he was just another bigot, I wouldn’t care. But since the company donates to those causes, I’m not spending money there.

Wait - Palin said boys and girls should be getting married? And presumably consummating these marriages? Well, Sarah Palin may think it’s alright for underage children to be having sex but I disagree. There’s a word for people who have sexual thoughts about children. I condemn not only Palin but also Fox News for giving Palin a public platform to deliver her call for pedophilia. The government should intervene - broadcasting licenses are a privilege not a right - and shut down the Fox Network is it puts this kind of filth on the air.

Confused moral outrage is fun.

I said that I could make that argument. I have not actually made it yet.

Bricker was responding to Ludovic’s post - which did specifically refer to Boston and Chicago politicians.