Palin Fears Media Threaten Her First Amendment Rights

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

See that semi colon right there? That separates each section it's called grammar. You can take the statement out all on its own and it would stand. This is how people get screwed on contracts. A comma or in this case a semi-colon can alter the whole meaning.

That is why it was structured in this way, there are other legal definitions that back this up its called slander and or defamation of character.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


What the hell?

How is saying that Sarah Palin is attacking Obama, by media or not slander?

Slander would be me saying Sarah Palin has sex with moose before she shoots them, with no proof to back that up.

Now if I found a dead moose that she'd shot with a smile on its face... well that changes everything.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife




Yes, it is separating them in relation to the first clause. You see, they can't use a comma or else it would be a run on sentence. All of these phrases are in relation to the first clause:

1) respecting an establishment of religion

2) prohibiting the free exercise thereof

3) abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

4) the right of the people peaceably to assemble

5) to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

All of those are connected to this phrase: Congress shall make no law...

So it's this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

Congress shall make no law against the right of the people peaceably to assemble

Congress shall make no law to stop petition the Government for a redress of grievances


So, perhaps before you lecture people on grammar you should first understand it yourself.

Also, you might need to look up the definition of slander. If Palin can say Obama pals with terrorists... I think the media should be in the clear.


[edit on 2-11-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by grover


Defamation of character applies in this case.

Saying she is not smart or doesn't know what she is talking about is a derogatory remark.

*edit* for spelling

[edit on 2-11-2008 by Hastobemoretolife]

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Not true. Those aren't definitive statements. You can say someone isn't smart without being worried about any lawsuit.

Now if someone said, "Palin has an IQ of 74, which is near retardation", then you'd be looking at slander (assuming it's not true).

The statements you referred to are opinions. Now, suing based off of someone's opinion would be an infringement of their first amendment rights.

[edit on 2-11-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Not necessarily... could be a statement of fact. She sure doesn't know what the VP does.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
See that semi colon right there? That separates each section it's called grammar.

Please, tell me more about grammar... (You're missing a period and a capital letter there, by the way.)

You can take the statement out all on its own and it would stand.

So, you're saying that "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" is a complete sentence?

Please, tell me more...

That is why it was structured in this way, there are other legal definitions that back this up its called slander and or defamation of character.

Oops! A couple more periods and capital letters missing there, bud.

Looks like Sublime wrapped it up quite nicely.

[edit on 2-11-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
Saying she is not smart or doesn't now what she is talking about is a derogatory remark.

Wouldn't you think that someone that points out punctuation and grammar would Know the difference between "Know" and "now"???

Congress isn't allowed to make laws violating free speech, but there are laws that protect free speech.

Saying truthful remarks about Obama and the media turning them around and making them look false is a violation of the first amendment. It is violating her right to free speech. By definition the media is omitting relevant information to her statements.

Let's not get started on the job of the VP. You will find she was correct in that statement too.

Also, I never said I was a grammar or spelling expert, but I know what the function of a semi-colon, and comma is.

[edit on 2-11-2008 by Hastobemoretolife]

reply to post by Sublime620


Resorting to personal attacks so soon in the discussion, Sublime?

That's what happens when you can't defend your stance, I guess.

I can just see you at the Philadelphia Conventions with the Founding Fathers. I can see Franklin working out the details and trying to come to compromise over real issues, and jsobecky in the background yelling, "OMG, I saw John Hancock with a loyalist. He's not patriot! He doesn't even wear a lapel!"

Getting caught consorting with a loyalist might just have earned you a noose back then.

[edit on 2-11-2008 by jsobecky]

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


I hate to say it but you really have no idea what you are talking about.

I remember the first time I ever attended a town meeting in New England I asked this old yankee farmer what was going to happen and he said:

"You have the right to say anything you want and I have the right to tell you you're a damned fool."

THAT is freedom of speech.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Don't worry about the Grammar Nazis.. they're not as perfect as they want to think they are.

It's a lame tactic they use to deflect the discussion. It is used when they cannot defend their arguments.

Next thing you know, they'll be calling you a bully.

Remember: DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!

[edit on 2-11-2008 by jsobecky]

reply to post by grover


Your right, you do have that right, to tell me I'm a fool. If the statement is defended and the person making the statement is correct, then the person calling him a fool is going to look like the fool.

That is a completely different situation then what has been going on in the Media though.

There is a difference between calling somebody a fool because you don't agree with what they said. It is completely different to take somebodies statement out of context to get it to mean what you want it to mean and make them look stupid.

[edit on 2-11-2008 by Hastobemoretolife]

Ah, well, boys and girls, I'm going to bow out of this discussion. It's unfortunately getting too personal. That and the nasty u2u's I've been receiving have made my choice for me.

Have fun, and don't attack each other! It's only politics!

reply to post by jsobecky


I'm doing the same.

I'm done here time to move on to more positive threads.

reply to post by jsobecky


Grammar Nazis? How do you even get that from our discussion? He/she pulled out grammar on us, and completely misinterpreted a Constitutional Amendment in the process.

Somehow that's my fault?

Edit:

And I have to laugh at you calling anyone a troll. Go ahead and get back to reading your blogs, maybe you'll find another piece of useless information to introduce here.

[edit on 2-11-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Truthful comments like, "He pals around with terrorists".

Maybe "Joe Six Pack" gives a damn about that kind of defamation but anyone with a working cerebral cortex wouldn't.

reply to post by Marcus Calpurnius


Have you seen that video on YouTube about the soldier Joe Cook, Dear Mr. Obama. Yesterday he did an interview with Sheperd Smith on FoxNews. He may also be on Hannity in the next day or two.

The producer of that video and the entire "Dear Mr. Obama" series, Michael Brown, has just done an exclusive interview with a political blogger, LukeAmerica2020.

Here's the link:
lukeamerica2020.wordpress.com...

The home page is:
lukeamerica2020.wordpress.com...

This guy, Mr. Brown, has a powerful message. After you read this very interesting interview, be sure to send it to your friends and family ... post the link in blogs ... just in time for the election. We can win this election. Three days to go!

reply to post by Sublime620


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Oh wow, I always thought it was:

1) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
2) Congress shall make no law respecting or abridging the freedom of speech??? You can appease both clauses?
3) Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people peaceably to assemble
4) Congress shall make no law respecting the petition of Government for a redress of grievances

No wonder the they're all confused. Damn semi-colons!

[edit on 3-11-2008 by cognoscente]

Originally posted by whaaa
Conservatives are such crybabys.

Rush is Media, Sean is Media, Fox is Media, Savage is Media and they never miss an opportunity to smear Obama, Hillary, Bill or even Carter for that matter. AM radio talk is almost exclusively conservative and they are constantly whinning about the MSM when they are a part of it. Man it up you bunch of *snip*.

Hypocrisy much?

[edit on 1-11-2008 by whaaa]

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 11/1/2008 by maria_stardust]

I've noticed that too..they keep telling us they are not part of the mainstream media but they are totally part of it. I guess if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes a truth ?