Yikes! How ignorant is Sarah Palin?

A list of Sarah Palin’s demonstrable inaccuracies would be a long one, from her having said “Thanks, but no thanks” to her hilarious statement that Alaska supplies 20 percent of U.S. energy (try 3.5%).

But she’s at her most clueless and, as a VP nominee, potentially dangerous when it comes to the constitution. Glen Greenwald highlights her lack of knowledge about the First Amendment, in which she claims that the media characterizing her attacks on Obama as mean-spirited or negative as an infringement of her free speech rights.

Here’s what she said in a radio interview:

HOST: Is the news media doing a good job—are you getting a fair shake, are the Republicans getting a fair shake this year?

PALIN: I don’t think they’re doing their job when they suggest that calling a candidate out on their record, their plans for this country, and their associations is mean-spirited or negative campaigning. If they convince enough voters that 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.

And here’s the First Amendment:

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.

The audio is available here.

I’ll run the most relevant part of that by you in case you’re Sarah Palin:

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

So the First Amendment prevents government from abridging the right of the press to speak out. The purpose of this is to keep the government on its toes by providing criticism and by informing the pubic.

Sarah Palin apparently has the First Amendment backwards. She thinks it limits the right of the press to comment on the actions of government.

She’s aspiring to be Vice President. She reportedly has aspirations to be President, and could end up thrust into that role should anything untoward befall John McCain. And she doesn’t understand the constitution of the U.S. in the slightest.

2 Responses to “Yikes! How ignorant is Sarah Palin?”

1. Tim says:

   November 1, 2008 at 1:51 pm

   I’m not sure what your point is.

   In no place did Mrs.Palin suggest gov’t intervention or restriction on free speech/press. She said that the press (media) was not doing their job when they label statements as ‘negative campaigning’ when in fact it is simply known facts.

   When the media says a particular candidate is engaging in negative campaigning they (the media) are putting a limitation on free speech. They are saying that we are labeling what you are saying and if you continue to say it we will continue to label it. Now, a candidate is not free to speak for fear of reprisal by the media.

   So if today Mrs. Palin made mention of Mr. Obama’s aunt who is an illegal immigrant the press would label it ‘negative campaigning.’ So, she and her handlers must consider that fact. In effect, the media has limited free speech.
2. bodhipaksa says:

   November 1, 2008 at 3:00 pm

   “In no place did Mrs.Palin suggest gov’t intervention or restriction on free speech/press.”

   Well that certainly wasn’t my point. Where on earth did you get that from?

   She evidently thinks — and this is my point — that her First Amendment rights to free speech are being abridged (or could be abridged) by the press being critical of her positions.

   But the first amendment is about preventing the government from abridging the free speech of the press, not about preventing the press from criticizing the government.

   That is precisely why the First Amendment exists — to allow the press an unfettered right to criticize the government. Palin misses this point entirely, demonstrating that she doesn’t understand one of the most fundamental parts of the constitution.

   If Mrs Palin today made mention of an Aunt of Obama’s who is an illegal immigrant, the press is perfectly at liberty to describe that as negative campaigning if the so wish. And they may be wrong or they may be correct, depending on how she presented that fact and the conclusions she drew from it. I’s their first amendment right to make such criticisms. The first amendment does not exist to protect people from criticism. It absolutely does not protect Sarah Palin from being criticized.

   By your standard (and Palin’s) you’ve just abridged my first amendment rights by criticizing my post! Do you see the problem?