Sarah on 1st Amendment: So Dumb it Hurts
Find a Conversation
Sarah on 1st Amendment: So Dumb it Hurts
| Fri, 10-31-2008 - 9:15pm |
Friday Oct. 31, 2008 13:38 EDT
Sarah Palin speaks on the First Amendment
(updated below - Update II - Update III)
Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/31/palin/
Somehow, in Sarah Palin's brain, it's a threat to the First Amendment when newspapers criticize her negative attacks on Barack Obama.


Pages
I understand what it state, but you seem intent on ignoring it's real world applications. The next time you see a protester, get a group of friends and confront them...the first thing you'll hear is "right to free speech," and I don't think it's because the protesters have confused you with the US Congress.
Of course not.
>>> Of course not. They will be reminding me that the government is not going to back me up in my wish for them to stop talking.
Undoubtedly...but, in fact, the government just may, but it won't be the Congress coming to remove you.
>>> If I then silence them in some way, heckling or outshouting them, I will not be guilty of violating their first amendment rights, but rather, I would be guilty of harrassment or some other issue.
But you would, in fact, be guilty of preventing them from exercising their "right to free speech" which they believe is enumerated in the First Amendment.
>>> I"m sorry you're just wrong here. So was Gov. Palin. If you can find a court case where someone other than a government institution or it's representative (i.e. a teacher) was found to have violated the First Amendment, please share. To pre-empt your customary answer of, "Why can't you find it yourself?" I tried. There is no such animal.
The first amendment has similar colloquial "confusions" regarding it's separation of church and state, as does the second amendment. Constitutional scholars can debate the issues, and indeed they probably have, but the common understanding, which is an arguable one, is that Americans have an inherent "freedom of speech" and that infringement on that is a violation of their rights protected by the Constitution.
The first amendment has similar colloquial "confusions" regarding it's separation of church and state, as does the second amendment. Constitutional scholars can debate the issues, and indeed they probably have, but the common understanding, which is an arguable one, is that Americans have an inherent "freedom of speech" and that infringement on that is a violation of their rights protected by the Constitution.
I don't want to beat the dead horse, but I'm afraid that you're interpretation is simply incorrect.
>>> I don't want to beat the dead horse, but I'm afraid that you're interpretation is simply incorrect. Unless you are able to come up with some example where the press or a private entity has been found guilty of violating someone's first amendment rights - that is, not just their freedom of speech, but their constitutional right to free speech, I'm afraid we're at an impasse.
I really don't have any desire to dig through law cases, so I'll leave you with this...go to downtown anywhere, USA and tell the first 5 people you meet that they don't have a right to free speech and see what the reaction is. If they all tell you, "I know." Then you will have proven your point...I'm guessing they won't. Until the citizenry agree with your interpretation of the Constitution, I'm afraid we are at an impasse.
ROFL - Let me see if I've got this right.
~ SW
>>> ROFL - Let me see if I've got this right. It is not the actual wording or the interpretation by the Courts of the US Constitution that matters -- it is the belief of what it means to the average 'man on the street' that actually defines it's meaning. Man, your arguments are often worth the price of admission.
Glad to hear it. LOL! I always love to hear the ramblings of "Constitutional scholars" like yourself. Say, wouldja mind showing us where it says "separation of church and state" in the Constitution? Or that you have the right to own a guy? We'll wait right here with our bowl of popcorn. ; )
>>> It's no wonder that you consider yourself both capable and qualified to critique the knowledge of the US Constitution of an actual Constitutional Law scholar, like, say, Barack Obama.
Constitutional scholar? LOL! Barry wasn't even a decent community organizer. Quite the horse...er...jackass...you've backed.
>>> I keep reading some threads and wondering why people even bother to respond to some posters.
I know we shouldn't, but it's like slowing down for an automobile accident. Sometimes conservatives just have to engage some folks to see the fascinating twists and turns of the liberal mind. LOL!
You have obviously NEVER read the text of the Maryland Toleration act
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1048&Itemid=264
The "toleration" part only extends to certain Christian denominations, it calls for the deaths of Jews and anyone who denies the trinity. The so called "toleration" title stems from the fact that Protestants and Catholics were tolerating each other, but neither were tolerating Jews or anyone who did not believe in the trinity.
This sort of "tolerance" only extended to a select few, sort of like Sara Palin idea of free speech only applies to republican politicians and their supporters.
To compare religiously based torture and death to a fine for not getting you pet or car registered is ridicuolous.
But you are proud of the all the persecution done by Christians, you say so even in your post.
Anyway, read the act of toleration before you respond, you obviously have no clue about it.
"And reading a document you're going to comment on would probably be helpful as well."
Pot, I'd like you to meet kettle
You commented on the Maryland act of Toleration, and it was OBVIOUS that you had never read it, or even heard about it.
"I guess that depends on your perception of "free speech." When the criticism is of such intensity and volatility as to cease being simple criticism and becomes an instrument to quiet, or intimidate, the "free speech" then yes, it could definitely be an attack on the First Amendment."
Wow, so criticising Palin for running a negative add is intimidating to her. If she feels intimidated by criticism , then she shouldn't run for office.
Pages