Sarah Palin and The First Admendment

Voltaire said: I do not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.

That is how I feel about Sarah Palin.  Except if she is going to rail against the right to freedom of speech, then she could at least read the Constitution, that she and all republicans preach is how government should be run, the she could at least read the First Amendment to the Constitution.  Remember, when the republicans took control of the house of representatives, they said they would use the Constitution as their guide.  Again, as with Palin, they have not bothered to read the Constitution, let alone the Bill of Rights.

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.

She is at it again.  She has taken a wacko leap into Glacier Bay.  Yesterday, she took that leap.

Palin tweeted: Common sense and decency absent as wacko “church” allowed hate msgs spewed @soldiers’ funerals but we can’t invoke God’s name in public square

This jump in the bay was caused by the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Chief Justice John Roberts [Mr. ultra conservative] wrote:   But under the First Amendment, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker Instead the national commitment to free speech requires protection of even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. Debate on public issues should be robust, inhibited and wide-open because speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of the First Amendment values.

You can read the entire opinion and arguments at:

Now is she calling the Chief Justice an idiot?  It would seem so.  If she would only read the First Amendment.

But Palin has been at this First Amendment bashing for sometime.  Palin’s argument is that “common sense” requires that offensive protests be banned.   Because she doesn’t know the First Amendment, she preaches the principle of “free speech” at the strangest times. In an interview in 2008 she said:

If they convince enough voters 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.

How hard can this be  I forgot she hasn’t read it, or if she did her brain function was so limited that she did not understand, or she just ignored it.  No, not Sarah, miss truth and honesty.  The First Amendment bars the Government from abridging free speech rights.  Nowhere does it say that it has anything to do with whether you are free to say things without being criticized, or whether you can comment on blogs or webpages without being edited, or whether people can bar you from their private planes because they don’t like what you said.

She has criticized Obama’s associations, like those with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers shouldn’t be considered as negative attacks. She said, “for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate’s free speech rights under the Constitution.  If she would only read, or I just wish she could read.The mainstream press is under the First Amendment guaranteed. This is not just about absolute stupidity or ignorance about our basic freedoms, but she speaks for to the standard right-wing grievance instinct: that it is inherently unfair when they are criticized. Now, it is even unconstitutional.

Republicans have attacked free speech consistently to serve their own ends.  They did in the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s.  They have even gone so far as to try to ban certain speech as unconstitutional, by trying to pass a bill to amend the constitution.  Think flag burning, protesting the Viet Nam war and speaking against it.  It would seem that the only part of the First Amendment they recognize is freedom of religion, unless of course you are Muslim and your religion is Islam.  I doubt they read it. It could only be that someone who could read told them.  The amendment they can read, or so it seems, is the Second Amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”  Guns and Religion, their platform from the time first brick was laid.

The Constitution guarantees freedom of association So according to Palin, when she or newspapers criticize Obama for his associations, they are in fact threatening his constitution rights

If conservative media convinces enough voters that Obama is a Muslim, then does that not violate his right to freedom of religion?

And, ironically, isn’t Sarah violating the First Amendment right to a free press by criticizing the media and convincing her sheep that newspapers, magazine, and blogs are biased and corrupt?During the Bush administration,k eight long years, we have had an administration that had nothing but absolute contempt for the Constitution.  Would it be worse to replace them with people who obviously have never read it?




One response to “Sarah Palin and The First Admendment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: