No restriction on "free press" here.
The reporters and publishers of the cited newspapers are 100% free to print whatever they wish.
They've just had their free airfare snatched away in preference to someone else.
Same thing happened to me last month when I tried to book a flight to Texas and they told me all the seats were already sold.
I wept for days and suddenly realized my country was going down the shitter.
The reporters and publishers of the cited newspapers are 100% free to print whatever they wish.
They've just had their free airfare snatched away in preference to someone else.
Same thing happened to me last month when I tried to book a flight to Texas and they told me all the seats were already sold.
I wept for days and suddenly realized my country was going down the shitter.
What's wrong with these bitter ignorant Americans?
Sharing the wealth with previously-dispossessed peoples
http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/08/obamas-favorite-liberal-forum-huffpo.html
Sharing the wealth with previously-dispossessed peoples
http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/08/obamas-favorite-liberal-forum-huffpo.html
ABC News reports:
In a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. 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.
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."
Salon's Glenn Greenwald explains why this argument is frighteningly wrong: 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."
If anything, Palin has this exactly backwards, since one thing that the First Amendment does actually guarantee is a free press. Thus, when the press criticizes a political candidate and a Governor such as Palin, that is a classic example of First Amendment rights being exercised, not abridged.
This isn't only about profound ignorance regarding our basic liberties, though it is obviously that. Palin here is also giving voice here to the standard right-wing grievance instinct: that it's inherently unfair when they're criticized. And now, apparently, it's even unconstitutional.
According to Palin, what the Founders intended with the First Amendment was that political candidates for the most powerful offices in the country and Governors of states would be free to say whatever they want without being criticized in the newspapers. The First Amendment was meant to ensure that powerful political officials would not be "attacked" in the papers. It is even possible to imagine more breathaking ignorance from someone holding high office and running for even higher office?
This isn't only about profound ignorance regarding our basic liberties, though it is obviously that. Palin here is also giving voice here to the standard right-wing grievance instinct: that it's inherently unfair when they're criticized. And now, apparently, it's even unconstitutional.
According to Palin, what the Founders intended with the First Amendment was that political candidates for the most powerful offices in the country and Governors of states would be free to say whatever they want without being criticized in the newspapers. The First Amendment was meant to ensure that powerful political officials would not be "attacked" in the papers. It is even possible to imagine more breathaking ignorance from someone holding high office and running for even higher office?
Goodness you people are incredibly stupid. Thank god your monopoly on the minds of those similarly retarded has run its course with the last 8 years of your demagogue bush.
Kicking people off your plane has nothing to do with free press. The press can do whatever they wanna do. They dont have some right to a free seat on Obama's plane.
Unless of course you are one of those dirty stinking communist bastards that think you have a right to a free ride on some one else's plane.
uke1:Yes, constitutionally, the Obama campaign's actions are not in violation of the First Amendment. But when you start denying reporters access, they tend not to like it. The action taken by the campaign was arrogant and was certainly meant to deliver a message. By the way, the press cannot "do what ever they wanno do." They have laws they must follow like everyone else.
Also, in a larger sense, the government does exercise some control over one segment of the media: broadcast television stations are granted licenses by the Federal Communications Commission, whose members are appointed by the president. Past administrations, notably that of Nixon and maybe Johnson, considered using the FCC to "get at" unfriendly networks, who owned and continue to own local broadcast stations. I can see overzealous members of any incoming administration at least considering the same when coverage is not to their liking.
I found Biden's blow-up recently when he was questioned by a veteran Florida TV reporter very telling. This administration is gonna be very "in your face" toward the media, and that attitude frequently comes back to bite you in the bottom.
Also, in a larger sense, the government does exercise some control over one segment of the media: broadcast television stations are granted licenses by the Federal Communications Commission, whose members are appointed by the president. Past administrations, notably that of Nixon and maybe Johnson, considered using the FCC to "get at" unfriendly networks, who owned and continue to own local broadcast stations. I can see overzealous members of any incoming administration at least considering the same when coverage is not to their liking.
I found Biden's blow-up recently when he was questioned by a veteran Florida TV reporter very telling. This administration is gonna be very "in your face" toward the media, and that attitude frequently comes back to bite you in the bottom.
