Sarah Palin makes my eyes roll… again

November 2, 2008 @ 6:45 pm

Okay, here we go again. Governor Palin definitely gets my hackles up. In fact, I’d say that my rate of hackle-rise is out of all proportion to her probable impact on my life. I’m almost certainly over-reacting. Again. Perhaps.

Sarah Palin has a strange understanding of the principles of the First Amendment, if her comments during a radio interview are any indication:

Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama’s associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, 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, Palin said. “If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations,” Palin told host Chris Plante, “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.”

Let’s refresh our civic memories. The First Amendment says, in its entirety:

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. [emphasis mine]
Oh, Sarah, Sarah, Sarah… free speech is not threatened because you “fear… attacks by the mainstream media.” The First Amendment does not guard anyone against criticism, even nasty foul criticism. It most certainly doesn’t “protect” candidates from negative commentary by the press. Buck up, bucky! Someone didn’t like what you said, and they critiqued you for it. Tough bunnies! If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen!

So, does Sarah Palin’s idiot comment even matter? I’d say I’m over-reacting except for the slim possibility that she’ll be sitting in the Oval Office, the more realistic possibilities that she will return to Alaska to govern, or try to take up a position in Congress. I also fear that too many other, less celebrated individuals have similar view of the First Amendment, thinking that it protects them from imagined evils or critical examinations. Glen Greenwald comments in his blog,

This isn’t only about profound ignorance regarding our basic liberties, though it is obviously that. Palin here is also giving voice to the standard right-wing grievance instinct: that it’s inherently unfair when they’re criticized. And now, apparently, it’s even unconstitutional.

So even if Palin doesn’t, in the long run, matter, I suspect we’d all benefit from more folks being more familiar with the principles of Free Speech.