Come see the free-speech suppression inherent in the system. Sheesh.
Let’s see how Bricker spins this. Even he can’t rationalize how the first amendment somehow applies to the media. I mean it says right in the amendment she was talking about “The Government shall make no laws…” Nothing about the media somehow stifling her by ridiculing her bullshit allegations.
You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
So I’m guessing Palin stopped reading around part that mentioned Obama’s freedom of association rights.
It is now time for me to send the McCain campaign my suggestion for their next four days of strategy, talking points and advertising verbage:
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought –
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
Holy cow. That’s some impressive spin, right there.
Heads up, Princess, but the media has First Amendment rights too. 
I got nothin’.
The First Amendment doesn’t apply to the media.
I only hope that everyone remembers that when President Obama signs the Fairness Doctrine back into law.
But as far as Palin’s commentary goes… she’s woefully misinformed.
So her story is that she wasn’t trying to portray Obama’s associations as negatives, but merely pointing out odd little bits of trivia from Obama’s past, and that she didn’t think that information would sway any votes in her direction?
Oh. Okay. Thanks for the info! Say, when does your vice presidential campaign start? You might want to focus on that instead.
You know what’s funny? By the logic of her own argument, she’s infringing on the media’s First Amendment rights by attacking them for attacking her. The difference here is that she really is the government in this case.
Granted, I don’t believe either one to even be slightly in the realm of infringement but if you were to, say, give Palin’s argument a .0001% chance of succeeding in a court of law, you’ve got to give mine a .0002% chance and that’s, like, double the amount, so I clearly win.
[jaw drops,hits floor]
as for the fairness doctrine, the people own the airwaves and the Congress can certainly regulate certain aspect of what is broadcast. See profanity regulation, no freedom of speech infringement.
I presume you mean that the First Amendment does not apply to the media suppressing the rights of others to free speech, since the media have their rights to free speech free of government interference, same as every one else.
Sarah Palin is not the first person to think that her First Amendment rights are being trampled on when others criticise what she’s saying. But, in her position, she really outh to know better.
She certainly outh.
“The Democrats and the media are trying to suppress free speech” is the conservatives’ meme-of-the-moment. flickster and Sam Stone came around trying to sell us some of that last night in the Obama victory celebrations? thread.
As I noted in response there,
Yeah, the last time I saw spin like that, I was fifteen years old and had just finished a bottle of lemon gin.
Well, if you concede to the government the power to regulate based on political content – ostensibly ensuring “equal time” for viewpoints – then you breathe life into Palin’s argument, at least insofar as it applies to broadcast media. She argues that by taking a position that her claims are “negative campaigning” and attacking them as such, the broadcast media is going down a slippery slope, since they are in effect endorsing this view to her detriment.
Now, this is horseshit, to use a technical rhetorical term. But if you argue now that the government CAN require the media to manage or parcel out how much attention it pays to each side, then it seems to me you’re conceding the gravamen of her argument: that the media can be held to particular positions at particular times by action of the government.
Yes, I know Obama has indicated his lack of support for the measure. My comment was more tongue-in-cheek than anything else; I don’t regard it as a serious possibility.
(Although it seems that askeptic, at least, isn’t steadfastly opposed to it. But Obama’s got the right idea.)
I’m only going to say she wasn’t terribly clear. Free speech requires a lot more than merely the Constitution to facilitate - it also requires a diverse media willing to engage these issues. Our media reacts imperfectly oftentimes to these matters.
I don’t think it is terribly controversial to note that - chilling effects are a pretty well documented phenomenon in the law.
I don’t think Palin was terribly precise by talking about First Amendment rights here - as has been noted, this affects government action only. But if she wanted to discuss free speech and free discussion of issues, then she was spot on - and things not necessarily unconstitutional - like the problems in daily papers and the concentration of media ownership - become problematic. Again, not uncontroversial to note - I think all of us would agree with this.
Indeed, in several cities across our country alternative newsweeklies are threatened by the problems of the SDMBs corporate parent - and while hooker ads are covered pretty well by Craigslist, the City Paper in Washington provides some journalism that Craigslist can’t duplicate. I might not agree with all of it, but I like the fact that it’s out there.
That’s pretty much the argument of last resort, isn’t it, when they have no actual response to the criticism.
I’d like to know if it’s possible, in her view, to actually criticize anything she says in a way that she doesn’t see as an attempt to deny her her 1st Amendment rights.
Bricker: How much do you think the Fairness Doctrine would really change things even if it were signed into law? I’m as opposed to it as you are but I’ve never been able to work up any vitriol against it because more than a majority of the current mainstream media would be firmly beyond its reach. What’s more, the percentage of the public discourse unaffected by a Fairness Doctrine law is only going to increase as the people who listen to political radio and watch over-the-air TV (or any TV at all, for that matter) dwindles to nothing.
If the government were to attempt to give itself regulatory powers over more of the media, you can be sure I’d do anything in my power to stop that.