I just finished reading a New Yorker article where she wonders whether her husband lost his First Amendment rights when she became governor. This was in reference to the press criticizing him for making phone calls in an attempt to have the state trooper fired.
Well, since part of said First Amendment concerns the right of citizens to petition the government for a redress of grievances, Palin might actually have an excellent point here.
How, exactly? How was his right infringed? He wasn’t prevented from doing anything, just criticized after the fact. Does the First Amendment outlaw that?
Exactly. ** Mr. Moto**, I’m pretty sure you’re smarter than you’re letting on here. I would think that Palin’s pure, unadulterated ignorance on display here would have even you shaking your head…
Look, I said in above that Palin wasn’t terribly clear in her original remarks, and that I didn’t support them as they stood. And in the various threads about her vice-presidential responsibilities, should she ever have any, I allowed that her answers in debates weren’t models of precision either.
That said, though, it is a major league jump from there to “pure, unadulterated ignorance” and I’m not going to jump that far. Because the fact is that taking a government job will impose speech restraints on a person and even sometimes on his family. This will impose other restraints as well concerning First Amendment rights. Todd Palin would have been prevented from lobbying the state government in Alaska because of his wife’s job - and absolutely nobody would have a problem with this - but we ought to agree that it is a restriction of the First Amendment freedom of petition. A necessary restriction, but a restriction nonetheless. And going too far with these absolutely will run into constitutional problems - there are tons of cases about that. You don’t surrender your freedoms just by getting elected, taking a government job, or joining the military.
I don’t think Palin is necessarily on point with her criticisms here, and I suspect that most people will blow them off in the end as meaningless complaining. But some of the people here criticizing Palin don’t seem to have much of an understanding of the Constitution beyond what is sung in Schoolhouse Rock. Mine doesn’t go much further than that - but I’m willing to look things up - which puts me miles ahead of some here.
Really? They seem quite clear to me: she believes that the First Amendment protects political candidates and governors from criticism, which is pretty much exactly the opposite of the actual thrust of the First Amendment. What, exactly, was she unclear about?
Oh, come on. This is just post-hoc justification. You and I both know that’s not what she meant. She was complaining about negative media coverage, not any actual body which attempted to prevent her husband from lobbying the government for a redress of grievances.
Post-hoc justification? I was responding to a post above. And I think this references separate media events joined only by Palin’s views of said First Amendment.
And incidentally, Todd Palin’s actions were at the heart of Troopergate, so in fact actual bodies were trying to prevent him from doing that. And that probably was a proper thing to do - but like I said above, we shouldn’t pretend that these things aren’t restrictions on freedom when they are. They may be necessary and legitimate restrictions, but they are restrictions, and keeping this in mind might keep us from going hog-wild in piling them on.
This has been a staple conservative spin move for several years now, and often employed in defending Fox News’s obvious bias. If you criticize something they say, it’s because you hate free speech. Free speech means you can say anything you want without anybody responding to it. :rolleyes:
I’'m still unclear on one point.
Were Todd Palin’s 1st amendment rights curtailed because the press criticized him?
It seems he did make the phone calls to try to get the Trooper fired. He seems to have had free speech then. He then received criticism from the press,because he tried to get a personal enemy fired. Does the 1st amendment provide freedom from criticism?
Only for elected officials and their spouses. Otherwise the trooper would have been protected from Todd Palin’s criticism, see?
To which my response is: Why doesn’t he support the troopers?
What part of the First Amendment protects free speakers from criticism by the press?
And again, what was Palin’s “excellent point” in complaining that Todd’s rights were infringed?
So, nothing then?
Was Todd’s attempt to get the trooper fired an example of a citizen petitioning the government for redress of grievances?
'Cos I had the impression that it was an attempt by a family member to make improper use of a high official’s power.
More like you had the Opression, you freedom-hating Commie bastard.
C’mon, guys. Why waste time discussing some obscure governor of a minor state?
Yeah. It isn’t like she was even the first at anything worthwhile. It’s high time we stopped picking on, mentioning, and thinking about her.
(Geraldine Ferraro was the first female VP pick of a major party in 1984.)