Then she should have said that. She didn’t. As for chilling effects that too pertains to the government. So you, like her are conflating two unrelated issues. Be a man like Bricker and admit she has no fucking idea what she is talking about.
The argument for broadcast media has always been that, as askeptic puts it: “…the people own the airwaves and the Congress can certainly regulate certain aspect of what is broadcast.”
With the advent of digital TV, that argument loses a good portion of its bang, as the available bandwidth for TV signals expands.
Still, there are places where things are broadcast-only, and I am loathe to surrender even that diminishing slice to government oversight of political content.
There can be no obligation on any part of the media to facilitate Sarah Palin’s speech – unless it’s with respect to those parts of the media that are licensed to use limited airwaves – because that infringes on their free speech rights.
However, there is nothing to stop her, and those who agree with what she’s saying, from starting up their own media, and publishing whatever they think it worth publishing. And while it might be hard to start up your own newspaper, or your own cable TV channel, these days it’s extremely easy to publish whatever you like on the Internet. So there’s an enormous marketplace of ideas out there.
But I think Sarah Palin wants a privileged place in that marketplace, to be heard without being criticised, and the First Amendment does not give such a privileged place to any one, and certainly not to state governors or to candidates for Vice President of the U.S.
I see through your cunning plan, you can’t defend Barbi Spice so you are trying to shift the conversation. Start your own thread. I knew I should have ignored your red herring…
Undoubtedly Mr. Moto can defend himself, but let me pose the following question to you:
Let’s say you own a shopping mall. Students from a local high school, supporting the war in Iraq, use the center atrium of your mall to ask mall patrons to sign petitions to Congress to not make soldier’s deaths meaningless by withdrawing from Iraq before we win. Incensed at the students’ view, you order them to leave, and, when they refuse, seek to have them evicted as trespassers.
Do you see any First Amendment issues wafting around that scenario?
The man asked me a question; I answered. It was relevant, tangentially, to the subject matter of your OP.
Deal with it.
Yes.
Damn it, I keep falling for your devious tactics… 
I, for one, MISS the Fairness Doctrine. Nowadays crackpots have to buy commercial time, just like candidates with money and supporters. Back in the day that was the only way a worthy patriot like Lar “America First” Daly could get a half hour on WGN.
How you figure? Who is standing in Palin’s way when it comes to her free speech rights? Who is stopping her from saying anything she feels like saying (except perhaps her handlers in the McCain campaign, sometimes, if they can manage it)?
What Palin is whining and bleating about seems to be not that the media are preventing her from saying whatever she wants to—hell, they not only let her say whatever she wants, they broadcast whatever she says. Rather, it’s that the media have the temerity to criticize her remarks, and to express unfavorable opinions about them that might damage her in the eyes of the voters! “OMG they called me out on my negative campaigning! :eek: :mad: How dare they!”
Suck it up, Princess. The media aren’t your personal PR organization whose responsibility is to present you in the best possible light. If you want to be the campaign pitbull, rallying your base with a constant stream of allegations and smears about the rival candidate, knock yourself out: it’s a free country. But when you turn around and get all huffy that the media actually dared to describe your negative campaigning as negative campaigning—well, Princess Esther, you can kiss my liberal, First-Amendment-loving ass.
From the linked article (and the OP):
*“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.”
Is there anyone out there - I guess other than Mr. Moto - who thought Palin was unclear?
Moto, yeah, maybe instead of implying that the media was limiting he freedom of speech she intended to generally discuss trends in the media. But I don’t see anything in that quote to suggest as much. Hell, seems just about as likely that she intended to talk about “all of” the magazines and papers she reads regularly - has about as much support in her actual words as your tortured excuse.
Also from the linked article:
It’s sort of perplexing to me, because I’m a practical person and plainspoken also, but just cutting to the chase and calling things like I see them, just like most Americans. But this has not left a bitter taste in my mouth, the bitter shots taken by the mainstream media and by some of the elitism there in Washington.
So, if we take her at her own words, she intended to say media reportage on her campaign in some way threatens First Amendment rights. So the question becomes:
-Does she actually believe this? Could she really be this clueless? Is this “how she sees it”?
-Or does she know the distinction between reportage and speech restriction, but is just sloppy in her “plainspeaking”?
-Or is she intentionally insinuating something she knows is ridiculous, simply because her target demographic is stupid enough to accept it?
Did I miss any possibilities?
I see a problem, but it’s with how public space is constructed in the US. Most people shop in shopping malls where the shops, the spaces linking them, and the parking areas are all privately owned. So the only public areas that they travel through are the streets, where they are insulated from free speech (such as this petition) by being in their cars.
So people can’t gather signatures on a petition as they could in the “good old days”, by standing in the town square where everyone went shopping on Saturday. The town square may still be there, but no one goes there any more, and its place has been taken by the mall atrium, which is privately owned.
It’s a problem, but I can’t see an easy solution, because mall owners have rights, too!
Not unless something has changed since Pruneyard, though SCOTUS affirmed the right of the states to guarantee freedom of speech on private property.
I’m sure you have a specific case in mind, but I don’t care to search for it.
I’d assume FA issues would arise only if the mall owner has allowed other folks to circulate petitions in the past (and I’m not entirely sure about that instance.) But it seems a private property owner might essentially cause his property to become a public forum by such a history, after which he might be limited in his ability to quiet specific points of view.
But if I want to keep all petitioners, solicitors, and what-have-you from my property, I don’t see that as raising any FA issues. In fact, that is my understanding of what most malls do, and why you see such notices at all just about every mall entrance.
Now kindly cite the case telling me I’m wrong. 
You missed some of the bitter shots taken by some of the elitism there in Washington. Surely that’s against the law.
You would be wrong in California. Which is where I am and why I answered the way I did. You just know that Bricker was trying to sucker punch me with the wording of his question, supposing I would see nothing wrong with suppression of free speech of people I obviously don’t agree with.
Yeah. Just read that Pruneyard decision. That provision of the Calif const surprised me. But doesn’t seem to really affect free speech under The Big One. Seems more like upholding a state’s limitation of property rights.
The case cited in Pruneyard (gotta love that name!) - Lloyd was it? - is more in line with my understanding.
To criticize Palin is to destroy democracy. And families.
And possibly pie.
I think I missed a leftist conspiracy memo somewhere – we’re supposed to be in favor of reinstituting the fairness doctrine? Umm … sounds like a bad idea to me. Don’t we have enough false “balance” in political reporting?
But, given that the issue raised initially here was that of Palin’s statement, shouldn’t you be asking what her beliefs about the Fairness Doctrine, and government control of the media more generally, are?
Because if she would not support the Fairness Doctrine (and i have a hunch that she would not), then isn’t it a bit hypocritical of her to be wailing about the the media’s criticism of her, and trying to connect it to first amendment issues?
Absolutely.
But again, the question here should be: What does Sarah Palin think of all this, and are her overall views about things like concentration of media ownership consistent with the griping she is doing about this particular issue?
If you asked her whether the government, for example, ought to step in and impose greater restrictions on media ownership, what do you think her answer would be? If you asked her whether the networks should be under stricter control and oversight by the government in the ways they use the public airwaves, do you think she would say yes?
Personally, i think that reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would be missing the point, and i tend to agree with Barack Obama on this. Also, for the most part those seeking to reinstate the Doctrine are Democrats, for whom it would be sufficient to ensure that the Democratic voice is heard. All these Democrats are concerned with, for the most part, is have the same sort of access as Republicans; they’re not at all interested in expanding the scope of debate beyond the two-[arty system, and for that reason a return of the Fairness Doctrine would, in my opinion, be little more than “business as usual” in American politics.
As for the whole shopping mall thing, i believe that there is a pretty good reason to prevent mall owners from making unilateral decisions about what sort of speech they will accept. The owners of shopping malls have done everything possible to turn their malls into alternative public spaces, up to and including pushing for rezoning orders and other measures that have given malls a significant advantage over the old Main Street-style shopping district. If mall owners want to be the new Main Street, they should be willing to accept similar levels of public access and participation as those that characterized Main Street. As long as the pamphleteers (or whatever) don’t physically interfere with other people, of course.
I got my copy of the First Amendment right here, and I quote directly:
So I am not sure what the controversey is here.