Originally posted by Marcus Calpurnius
This from the media that attacked Palin's family personally and dug in to "Joe The Plumbers" background and life.

Did you read the post about the big dogs? EVERY ONE of the candidates have been "attacked". Look at how Obama's wife has been attacked. That's his family, right? And McCain put Joe in the spotlight (which he seems to love, by the way).

You're not getting the point here, though. It's not a matter of what's morally right or wrong. It's a matter of the First Amendment and what its purpose is. Sarah Palin thinks (apparently) like you do, that the it protects people from the media.



The First Amendment says that people have the right to speak freely without government interference. Palin is claiming that the media's criticism of her is keeping her from exercising her right (I think)?? It's (to quote a McCain campaign person) a WHACKED interpretation of a very simple idea.

This is not about what's right or wrong or morally good and bad.

Originally posted by Marcus Calpurnius
What Palin is saying is that the media lashes out at Palin simply for going after Obama like she should.

That may or may not be true. But that has nothing to do with the First Amendment! She's trying to bring the Constitution into this as though it's somehow failing to protect her from criticism.

I agree with you. The media is biased. Big deal. That's not what this thread is about.

Palin obviously has NO IDEA what the First Amendment means. THAT'S what this thread is about.

Palin doesn't know what a VP does. She doesn't know what the 1st Amendment is. What does she know?

does anybody think that palin was picked BECAUSE she is so bad? when somebody like her keeps saying these things...i start to wonder why her own party has not sat her down and explained things. it's almost like they WANT THE TICKET TO LOSE! maybe the republican big-wigs knew they were a long shot this time out, and deliberately let these 2 run because they did not want to put their strongest and brightest on the ticket, which would have ended up damaging the reputations of their best for the 2012 election.

Originally posted by Marcus Calpurnius
What Palin is saying is that the media lashes out at Palin simply for going after Obama like she should.
[edit on 1-11-2008 by Marcus Calpurnius]

Obviously you didn't read my opening commentary so:

She has every right in the world to say what she wants about Obama, Wright and Ayers... no one is hindering that...

... At the same time those in the media as well as those outside of it have the right to say that those comments are attacks, or for that matter that they are right on the money.

Freedom of speech goes both ways and she obviously does not understand that.

And what Palin said was:

Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by "attacks" from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.

In which she is totally wrong.

The whole premise she is working from is flawed which doesn't surprise me one bit... nor does it surprise me people who don't understand the difference support her as well...

... after years of attempting a sane dialogue with the right... I have come to the enscapable conclusion that you guys are clueless.

Originally posted by grover

Palin Fears Media Threaten Her First Amendment Rights

Now, how is "the MEDIA" threatening her 1st Amendment rights exactly?

She can still say what she wants, can't she?

She's not being thrown in jail for saying these things, is she?

How is the MEDIA threatening her 1st Amendment rights when she can still say anything thing she wants, whenever she wants too!

The media calling her speeches "attacks" is not threatening her 1st Amendment rights!

Somebody forgot to tell Palin to "Deny Ignorance", and not embrace it!


[edit on 11/1/2008 by Keyhole]

The media threatens everyone's rights. If you do anything to be put on television and make your face known...you are going to get lots of attention. She's a VP. She's going to take a hit. People like to watch people being put up on a pedestal and then be torn down disgracefully. I can understand her not liking the attacks she has received..i wouldn't like it either..but she should expect it to happen. This is the world we live in. It's chaotic and corrupt. Yet so many of us let our minds fall for the BS that the candidates keep spewing out of their mouths.

I think we are screwed either way...it doesn't matter who wins. Bush is destroying what little respectability we had left with the rest of the world as i type this.

But basically, i don't know how anyone can side with either one of these campaigns anymore. They are both VERY QUESTIONABLE candidates. I don't trust any of them..not one bit. I won't vote for the lesser evil.

Everyone that does the finger pointing...they need to start pointing it to the guy they support...because it's both of them.


Edit:

It doesn't matter who wins....we still all lose.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by David9176]

Palin may not understand First amendment rights.

But equally important is that fact that the media doesn't understand the RESPONSIBILITIES of that same right.
It does come with responsibilities.
Right now there is a website in Seattle that is posting the addresses of Homes that are sporting McCain political signs. Are they trying to incite something?

You all need to pay attention to another trend as well.
I'll call it "Blog bleedover". I'll use newspapers as an example.
They used to have reporters, and then columnist/op-ed people.
They were usually separate departments, occasionally a reporter would also write an opinion piece every now and then, but you could always tell which "hat" the writer was wearing.

But now, with the a more mature WWW, reporters are also blogging as much as reporting . Blogging has a more Op/Ed atmosphere to it, and reporters are allowed to express their views, rather than just report the facts. The front pages of Newspaper websites will link to a reporter's blog, or a standard story, and it's often that you have to read a little while to figure out which format you are reading.
It's become a gray area, that will only get grayer.
Not a responsible use of the First amendment.

We let the media decide so many things for us now.
Rather than news, it's a product. And it caters to a demographic.
Ignoring some facts, and presenting others, to keep that particular demographic happy.

Right now there is a Drudge story running about Obama getting pissed off at photographers for following him and his kid around while trick or treating.
Does he not understand First amendment rights?

How many good people are afraid to run for public office because they didn't pay a parking ticket 10 years ago?

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Right now there is a Drudge story running about Obama getting pissed off at photographers for following him and his kid around while trick or treating.
Does he not understand First amendment rights?

What do you mean? He's not citing the First Amendment. The media has the right to follow him around and he has the right to get pissed about it and say something.

How many good people are afraid to run for public office because they didn't pay a parking ticket 10 years ago?

I don't get the connection...