Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Sarah Palin on the First Amendment
I promised myself I wouldn't write about Sarah Palin ever again, but I couldn't pass this up. From an interview that aired this 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.
"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."
A brief refresher on the protections the First Amendment provides:
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.
Dear lord, I'm pining for Nov. 5.
|10.31.08 @ 4:20PM|#
Sigh. Sounds like something Sean Hannity would say, no? That
rapid-fire spewing of talking points.
Question for the gallery: Which form of demagoguery is worse:
rapid-fire spewing of talking points, or artfully couched and
sonorous semantic nullities?
|10.31.08 @ 4:20PM|#
Dear lord, I'm pining for Nov. 5.
Guy Fawkes night? Whatever you're planning mike, count me in.
Orange Line Special|10.31.08 @ 4:20PM|#
Here's my list of nineteen
non-partisan reasons to oppose Obama. For the issues that BHO
and his supporters have with the First Amendment, see #s 11, 13,
and especially 14.
The intelligent libertarian will note that the treatment JTP
received (discussed at the link) is indeed a FirstAmendment issue.
Does anyone know if the intelligent libertarian still visits this
site?
|10.31.08 @ 4:26PM|#
"The intelligent libertarian will note that the treatment JTP
received (discussed at the link) is indeed a FirstAmendment issue.
Does anyone know if the intelligent libertarian still visits this
site?"
I'm not going to read the article. Could you pleas explain this
claim without sounding like a total moron? Thanks.
Ska|10.31.08 @ 4:26PM|#
Are the reason articles going to continue to be about pot and video games, or is today my lucky day?
Kolohe|10.31.08 @ 4:27PM|#
Question for the gallery: Which form of demagoguery is
worse: rapid-fire spewing of talking points, or artfully couched
and sonorous semantic nullities?
The former. You can at least appreciate the artistry sometimes
present in the latter.
|10.31.08 @ 4:27PM|#
Freedom of the press. Freedom from the press. Who could fault her for confusing the two?
|10.31.08 @ 4:30PM|#
Way back when I was still interested in the election, I was
discussing Joe The Plumber. I thought it kinda creepy that he asked
Obama a pointed question and then, next thing you know, I knew his
yearly salary, his medical billing history, and his license
status.
I said that I found this kind of creepy. I said that it felt
like... you ask Obama a question and make him look bad (fsvo "bad",
of course) then your dirty laundry will be aired for the world to
see.
I had someone ask me if I wanted to repeal the 1st Amendment.
I can't help but think that the person who asked that question of
me missed the point.
Elemenope|10.31.08 @ 4:34PM|#
I concur with Kolohe, for much the same reason. If a person is literally painful to listen to, I'm less likely to listen, and so might miss the latest travesty.
the innominate one|10.31.08 @ 4:36PM|#
now Riggs is shilling for Obama. Weigel's powers of persuasion know no bounds.
|10.31.08 @ 4:38PM|#
Just about as scary as her getting a blessing to protect her
from witches from a guy who urged his parishioners to drive a woman
from their neighborhood in Kenya.
I'm afraid the more I hear about her the further I want her from
any level of political power.
It's not that she's stupid, she just seems remarkably uncurious
about the world.
But that seems to be the way Republicans like them. The same thing
has been said about GWB.
|10.31.08 @ 4:42PM|#
OMG, what a complete and utter MORON Failin is! Holy Smokes man,
her and McBush deserve one another, they are like two peas in a
pod!
Jiff
www.anonymity.cz.tc
KenK|10.31.08 @ 4:42PM|#
Yeah, Obama knows how to handle uppity reporters - or even
non-uppity reporters from papers that don't endorse him.
Palin is just not as subtle or nuanced as Obama.
Orange Line Special|10.31.08 @ 4:43PM|#
Why am I not surprised that Reason Magazine and its sockpuppets wouldn't understand the deep relationship between the JTP case and the FirstAmendment?
|10.31.08 @ 4:43PM|#
Jaybird, you left out a few parts.
Like how the McCain campaign and the conservative media flogged the
story in an effort to turn Sam Wurtzelbacher into a media star,
before the media began paying him any attention.
Wurtzelbacher, like Palin, has set out to put himself in in the
public eye, and had a big media machine working to do exactly that.
Of course the press is going to pay attention to them. This is
someone discomfitting?
|10.31.08 @ 4:45PM|#
Use the man's name, fer chrissakes. He's not a minor league
baseball mascot with a big styrofoam head.
Calling someone "Joe the Plumber" is the elitist rich guy
equivalent of calling someone "my black friend, Tony." Hey, look at
me, I know someone who works for a living!
BDB|10.31.08 @ 4:48PM|#
Yes, poor Joe, me might get a record deal deal out of it, and
possibly a nomination for Congress.
Keep playing the world's tiniest violin.
BDB|10.31.08 @ 4:49PM|#
Oh, also a book deal.
Morons like OLS think he's being sent to a concentration camp.
|10.31.08 @ 4:54PM|#
Palins complaints seem weird until you realize that we have a
media that demands and has been granted special legal and economic
status based on the idea that they comprise a de facto fourth
branch of government.
When you do have a privileged group with extraordinary power (in
part granted by government monopoly) who then turn in mass against
one segment of the polity or the other, then you do begin to have
de facto if not de jure censorship.
|10.31.08 @ 4:54PM|#
Sam the Plumber was kinda askin' for it by asking a hypothetical
question that had no basis in reality and acting like Obama was
personally attempting to enslave him, "destroy America",etc.
As far as Palin, I'm not trying to defend her..BUT, her idea of the
First Amendment sounds about the same as millions of "liberal"
First Amendment activists, no?
The Left has been stretching the bounds of the First Amendment and
showing ignorance of its application just about forever. So now the
Right joins the party. Depending on how look at it, this is either
equally stupid or hypocritical ( if the rightist previously
criticized the left for their "misoverestimation").
|10.31.08 @ 4:56PM|#
Why am I not surprised that Reason Magazine and its
sockpuppets wouldn't understand the deep relationship between the
JTP case and the FirstAmendment?
I don't know, why are you not surprised?
[audience laughter]
Thanks, Folks, I'll be here all week. Try the 'fu. Tip your
waitress.
|10.31.08 @ 4:58PM|#
""""Freedom of the press. Freedom from the press. Who could
fault her for confusing the two?"""
Not Borat.
I'm not suprised that OLS can't understand there is NO politician
interested in looking out for the 1st amendment.
How is McCain better than Obama on the issue? They both get an F.
But I get it, OLS prefers red team's F to blue team's F. That's
fine, but let's not pretend that one F is better than the
other.
Fluffy|10.31.08 @ 5:01PM|#
This has nothing to do with Joe the Plumber, OLS, you
moron.
Sarah Palin went on the air and claimed that if reporters wrote
stories claiming that she was a negative campaigner for her
statements about Obama, that meant they were restricting her 1st
Amendment rights.
This is further evidence that she is an idiot.
In order to defend her from the charge that she is an idiot, it's
necessary to indulge in absurdities like Shannon Love's, where you
assert that "the media" is part of the government.
|10.31.08 @ 5:02PM|#
joe,
Calling someone "Joe the Plumber" is the elitist rich guy
equivalent of calling someone "my black friend, Tony." Hey, look at
me, I know someone who works for a living!
It comes as absolutely no surprise that a someone such as yourself
would think that.
Coming as I do from a rural middle-class background as well as a
long line of small business as well as knowing many people who
started out humble and worked for decades to be "rich", I can say
that "Joe the Plumber" crystalizes differences between the present
day left and right.
You see a plumber who will always be working stiff and can never
aspire to anything more. His only hope for a better life lays in
handouts from his betters. I see someone with dreams and ambition
who could very well rise far up the economic ladder by dent of his
own efforts.
The elitism you see is your own dark reflection.
|10.31.08 @ 5:03PM|#
Joe, I suspect that you missed the point of my post too.
It's cool that you did, of course. I'm glad it gave you an
opportunity to make the point you wanted to make.
I'm just saying that I'm guessing you missed the point of my
post.
Benway|10.31.08 @ 5:04PM|#
I dunno, Joe. I don't think it would be too farfetched to see
the Toledo Mud Hens re-christen themselves the Toledo Plumbers, and
roll our a mascot named "Joe" that looks eerily like the Steelers'
mascot, only with a big styrofoam monkey wrench.
I think the First Amendment lesson in his story, though, is one we
already knew: if you become newsworthy, for whatever reason, the
news media has the resources to find out just about anything they
want to know about you. And those of us who believe in free speech
have to bite the bullet and accept this. For whatever reason (I
blame McCain's shameless sloganeering) the man's livelihood and
earnings became an issue. Subjecting his life to scrutiny may be
unsavory, but it's certainly within the bounds of legitimate
journalism.
BDB|10.31.08 @ 5:05PM|#
Nothing illustrates the pathetic vapidness of the McCain/Palin campaign better than the fact that the "Joe the Plumber" narrative lasted longer than three days.
rhywun|10.31.08 @ 5:06PM|#
Good heavens, cries of "media bias" are so 1990. Have a little respect for individuals' ability to think for themselves.
Fluffy|10.31.08 @ 5:08PM|#
Benway,
I also think you have to draw a distinction between what the press
did [which was certainly permissible] and the actions taken by
government employees [which certainly were not].
Pretending that they're the same allows McCain supporters to play
little martyr violins about the incident. And they're not the
same.
Any government employee who abused their position to pry into Joe
W's background deserves to lose their job. And I say that even
though I think the majority of the snooping was probably done for
personal curiosity and because abuse of the systems in question is
routine, and not for overtly political purposes.
Les|10.31.08 @ 5:10PM|#
Palins complaints seem weird until you realize that we have
a media that demands and has been granted special legal and
economic status based on the idea that they comprise a de facto
fourth branch of government.
Since the media isn't part of the government, and unless
the government is preventing her from saying something stupid
(which no one can seem to do), the complaint is more than "weird."
It's a reflection of an abysmal understanding of the Constitution,
and a pathetic piece of whining, to boot.
Defending such willful ignorance and childishness from someone who
actually thinks she's qualified to be President indicates a
powerfully partisan reflex.
|10.31.08 @ 5:10PM|#
You see a plumber who will always be working stiff and can
never aspire to anything more.
No, dipshit, I see a guy who is a complex human being, who is more
than what he does for a living, being reduced to a cardboard cutout
of a blue collar everyman, by people who seem deseperate to call
attention to the fact that, holy shit, they actually met somebody
who works for a living, and need to draw attention to that fact by
refering to him by the appellation one would give to a
mascot.
That's what they've done with this guy's public persona - turned
him into a mascot. I don't consider it so noteworthy when I'm
intereracting with someone who isn't rich and works in an office
that I'm compelled to call everyone's attention to it. Then again,
I'm not a Republican.
The McCain campaign has been treated Mr. Wurtzelbacher the same way
Michael from the Office would - hey, have you met my friend Joe the
Plumber? Yeah. A plumber. Right, buddy? Tell everyone what you do
for a living. Hey, quite down, I want everybody to hear what my
friend Joe does for a living.
But noticing that they're condescending to the guy is elitist. Uh
huh.
Paul|10.31.08 @ 5:10PM|#
thought it kinda creepy that he asked Obama a pointed
question and then, next thing you know, I knew his yearly salary,
his medical billing history, and his license status.
1. Knowing his hearly salary.
This is always important so we know who's giving enough and who's
not.
2. Medical billing history.
See: Single payer system. And why we need it so badly. His billing
history is proof that our system is failing, and why Obama's
healthcare plan will help J.T.P.
3. License status.
If you're not licensed, you're outside the system, and if you're
outside the system, you're against the system.
BDB|10.31.08 @ 5:12PM|#
"thought it kinda creepy that he asked Obama a pointed question
and then, next thing you know, I knew his yearly salary, his
medical billing history, and his license status."
It's called investigative journalism. And it would have never
happened had McCain not said his name 30 some odd times in the
debate, thereby making him a public figure. Jesus.
|10.31.08 @ 5:13PM|#
Benway,
There's a picture on the web of some devoted McCain supporters who
dressed up like Joe the Plumber for a rally. Dark bib overalls, big
wrenches, work boots...maybe he'd look something like that.
Did I mention that my black friend, Tony My Black Friend, is
black?
Orange Line Speshul Bus|10.31.08 @ 5:14PM|#
I've decided that telling people they're idiots is the best way
to get them to click my links.
Oh, by the way, PLEASE click my links! You don't know how much time
I've spent in Mom's basement working on those things.
Benway|10.31.08 @ 5:15PM|#
I don't know whether there's a legal disctinction to be drawn
between government employees and the news media when it comes to
"reporting" (i.e., snooping), Fluffy, but in any case I agree that
there ought to be.
Private citizens are another matter. I've never really bought into
the idea that "the press" is a formal, institutionalized structure,
neatly divisible from the rest of the world.
I don't know where campaign workers would fall on this spectrum,
but I tend to think they're more like private citizens. They're
responsible for more "news stories" about the election than any of
us likes to think.
Orange Line Special|10.31.08 @ 5:19PM|#
They still don't get the link between the JTP case and the 1st. Sad.
Seitz|10.31.08 @ 5:21PM|#
I'm not going to read the article. Could you pleas explain this
claim without sounding like a total moron? Thanks.
I think LoneDipshit has proven time and again that the answer to
this question is a resounding "NO".
Way back when I was still interested in the election, I was
discussing Joe The Plumber. I thought it kinda creepy that he asked
Obama a pointed question and then, next thing you know, I knew his
yearly salary, his medical billing history, and his license
status.
Right, Jaybird, it was just because he asked BHO a question. It had
nothing to do with McCain using him as a rhetorical device about
800 times over the next few days.
|10.31.08 @ 5:26PM|#
Sure, Seitz.
McCain started using JTP as a rhetorical device.
And the next thing I knew, I knew all about his yearly income, his
debts, and his licensing status.
Why was he used as a rhetorical device, again?
LarryA|10.31.08 @ 5:27PM|#
Sarah Palin went on the air and claimed that if reporters
wrote stories claiming that she was a negative campaigner for her
statements about Obama, that meant they were restricting her 1st
Amendment rights.
Freedom of Speech is also a First Amendment right. If the press
criticizes her when she tries to "call Barack Obama out on his
associations" but gives him a pass for doing the same, it's at
least unfair. At least Palin just bitched about it, and didn't have
her lawyer write letters threatening to sue if the articles
ran.
|10.31.08 @ 5:29PM|#
"It's called investigative journalism. And it would have never
happened had McCain not said his name 30 some odd times in the
debate, thereby making him a public figure. Jesus."
BDB, are you explaining to me why I shouldn't be creeped out?
Because, if you are, you are, like, failing.
Les|10.31.08 @ 5:30PM|#
If the press criticizes her when she tries to "call Barack
Obama out on his associations" but gives him a pass for doing the
same, it's at least unfair.
She could have said that without mentioning the 1st Amendment and
looking like a whiny ignoramus.
Just Plain Brian|10.31.08 @ 5:31PM|#
OLS, why do you DoThis with CerainWords?
Theory #237: It all began with OLS's complete misunderstanding of
the phrase, "Space, the Final Frontier"...
Scary Monsters|10.31.08 @ 5:32PM|#
Shed a tear for Joe the Plumber.
Hmm, I wonder how much the McCain campaign is currently payin' him
to go on tour?
Geotpf|10.31.08 @ 5:34PM|#
Orange Line Special | October 31, 2008, 4:20pm | #
Here's my list of nineteen non-partisan reasons to oppose Obama.
For the issues that BHO and his supporters have with the First
Amendment, see #s 11, 13, and especially 14.
Your list, especially the three numbers you mention, is completely
retarded. All three of those are about things people who
support Obama do or will do, not what Obama does or will
do himself. So, (using your logic) I'm voting against John McCain
because the KKK supports him and they are racists.
Scary Monsters|10.31.08 @ 5:35PM|#
Larry A: Freedom of Speech is also a First Amendment
right....
So you think Freedom of Speech means freedom from criticism? Boy,
you must have your Constitutional Rights infringed quite a bit.
SIV|10.31.08 @ 5:47PM|#
BDB,
"Investigative journalism" is when government employees, who are
also Obama campaign operatives,delve into government databases and
leak the information therein because a citizen asked their
candidate a difficult question?
They justified it as a "background check" because he publicly
stated he was possibly buying a business.
BDB|10.31.08 @ 5:47PM|#
Jaybird--
If someone mentions you in a debate 30 times, and you're creeped
out by it, I'd expect you would tell he media "Please respect my
privacy. No, won't go on our. No, I don' want interviews on Fox
News. Please stop using me in your stump speech. Etc.
If the media kept after him after he said "I want to be a private
person" THEN it would creep me out.
If he wants to be a media whore/D-list celebrity, cry me a river.
Deal with it. You're a public figure now, and you want to be.
Orange Line Special|10.31.08 @ 5:48PM|#
Geotpf: if BHO wins, the NationOfIslam is going to cheer.
However, BHO winning isn't going to give the NOI much additional
power. An even stronger case applies to McCain and the KKK: they
might be happy if he wins, but that won't give them additional
power.
However, if BHO wins, the other people mentioned in my list of
nineteen non-partisan reasons to oppose Obama will get
additional power. For instance, those borderline fascists
in the nutroots will have additional power. The civil servants who
can look up your personal information if you cross
The One will get additional power. If that's not understandable,
perhaps someone can provide it to you in comic book form.
voxpo|10.31.08 @ 5:49PM|#
Palins complaints seem weird until you realize that we have
a media that demands and has been granted special legal and
economic status based on the idea that they comprise a de facto
fourth branch of government.
See: BCRA media exemption
Thank: McCain, et. al.
Jennifer|10.31.08 @ 5:50PM|#
What is the "special economic and legal status" Shannon Love thinks government has granted the media?
SIV|10.31.08 @ 5:51PM|#
TV stations were threatened with government license revocation
for airing NRA ads that didn't pass the "factcheck.org test",
despite that they were completely factual.
That should be enough to abolish the FCC on First Amendment
grounds.
Just Plain Brian|10.31.08 @ 5:52PM|#
mentioned in my list of nineteen non-partisan
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think
it means"
JLE|10.31.08 @ 5:56PM|#
Freedom of speech is pure; sometimes the truth hurts, Sarah. No one wants you to be president, and most of us are convinced the old fart is going to die shortly. By whatever means necessary this country will not allow you to be its most revered icon. Not possible--too many smart people here. Now, I need to go dress badly. I'm going to be Sarah Palin for Halloween.
SIV|10.31.08 @ 5:57PM|#
BDB,
You are right. Anyone who doesn't want to bea media
whore/D-list celebrity shouldn't ask a politician a
question.
If you don't like it keep your mouth shut.
|10.31.08 @ 5:58PM|#
"I promised myself I wouldn't write about Sarah Palin ever
again, but I couldn't pass this up."
Well I passed it up. Because long ago I promised myself I wouldn't
read another Hit & Run Palin piece. After about 300 it got kind
of old.
Guess my willpower is superior to Riggs'.
|10.31.08 @ 5:58PM|#
Jennifer - a good place would be "shield laws" (33 states have
them) that allow journalists not to testify WRT their
sources.
And guess who gets to define who is a journalist?
Les|10.31.08 @ 6:03PM|#
Anyone who doesn't want to bea media whore/D-list celebrity
shouldn't ask a politician a question.
If all he did was ask a question, you'd be right. But we all know
he did more than that, so you're not.
BDB|10.31.08 @ 6:18PM|#
Les he's just repeating the talking points now.
Jesus. "All he did was ask a question". In what universe?
SIV|10.31.08 @ 6:19PM|#
Les,
All he did was ask a question before the State employee Obama
operatives leaked his government data. I don't blame him for what
he ahs done since. The State of Ohio and Plumber's Union might make
things a little difficult for Joe and his employer.
Jennifer|10.31.08 @ 6:19PM|#
Jennifer - a good place would be "shield laws" (33 states
have them) that allow journalists not to testify WRT their sources.
And guess who gets to define who is a journalist?
I never applied for or received a "journalist license," and I'm
pretty sure none of the Reasonoids have, either. If you want to
start a magazine, newspaper or for-profit Website, you might need
to get the same generic business license required for any
money-making venture, but you don't need a journalist license for
that, either.
And protection-of-sources hadn't prevented certain journalists from
going to prison on contempt charges for refusing to reveal their
sources, either. So I'd like to ask again what these "special legal
and economic privileges" are, especially in the context of
Shannon Love's original quote implying that Palin was somehow
justified in her bullshit complaint, because of all these special
privileges those mean ole journalists enjoy, presumably at her
expense.
|10.31.08 @ 6:19PM|#
OLS, there's absolutely nothing more compelling than a blogger's
list that justifies its talking points with self-referential links.
"I wrote it before so it MUST be true!"
So ... I guess you figure that because Republicans will be voting
red based on zero ideas from their candidate then you figure
everyone else should be swayed by a blog post with zero ideas?
Maybe. After all, Palin is a viable VP candidate to some folks,
too, so we can't rule out complete insanity.
BDB|10.31.08 @ 6:21PM|#
"OK what did he too before they went into his background?"
John McCain used him as a talking point thirty-three some odd times
in the debate.
Any normal person at that point would have told McCain and the
entire media to fuck off. But what did Joe the Martyr do? He gave a
press conference.
At that point, you're a D-list celebrity.
BDB|10.31.08 @ 6:21PM|#
Unless you think public figures aren't fair game. Which I don't think you do.
Just Plain Brian|10.31.08 @ 6:24PM|#
Like all good celebrities, Joe the Plumber has hired a publicity
team.
But I'm sure he really, really just wants to be left alone.
BDB|10.31.08 @ 6:26PM|#
Don't get me wrong, I don't hold it against the guy that he's trying to make a buck. But if he's doing that, he's doing this by making himself a minor celebrity. Which means his personal life is gonna be open to the media. Tough noogies, grow a pair.
Just Plain Brian|10.31.08 @ 6:27PM|#
"If he gets his way,
Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, also known as "Joe the Plumber," plans
to enjoy a lot more than just 15 minutes of fame. Two weeks after
emerging as the Republican Party's favorite proxy for the American
working man, Mr. Wurzelbacher has signed a management deal meant to
keep him in the public eye past next week's election and earn him
some money at the same time, preferably as a show business
personality"
Why, oh, why won't the media just leave this privacy-loving man
alone?
|10.31.08 @ 6:28PM|#
"What did he do before they went into his background?"
"John McCain used him as a talking point thirty-three some odd
times in the debate."
Is this seriously supposed to make me feel less creeped out? Then
they asked him to show up on a tv show... at which point he said
"wow, television!" and he showed up.
At what point would you say his medical bills became something that
shouldn't be something that would creep me out if I found out about
them?
"Something about Paris Hilton."
I know nothing at all about Paris Hilton's medical bills.
Though, granted, the thought of learning about them also creeps me
out.
Is your argument that I should not be creeped out by this?
|10.31.08 @ 6:29PM|#
"Palin/Joe the Plumber 2012!"
After the drubbing the GOP is likely to take in this election, the
party leaders may decide George Will has a point, and aim just a
bit higher on the intellectual ladder for their nominees. One can
only hope.
BDB|10.31.08 @ 6:29PM|#
Well Jaybird, then you have a rather quaint notion that the
media is going to leave alone the personal lives of minor
celebrities.
Good luck with that.
Just Plain Brian|10.31.08 @ 6:31PM|#
Is your argument that I should not be creeped out by this?
If you're not creeped out by Paris Hilton, you're not paying
attention.
JLE|10.31.08 @ 6:33PM|#
No medium will leave alone anything. Ever. The media have a right to make shit up just as much as everyone else. To not defend that is deplorable.
Just Plain Brian|10.31.08 @ 6:33PM|#
After the drubbing the GOP is likely to take in this election, the party leaders may decide George Will has a point, and aim just a bit higher on the intellectual ladder for their nominees. One can only hope.
I'm hoping next time we get "Quinn The Eskimo" or "John The
Fisherman"
BDB|10.31.08 @ 6:33PM|#
"After the drubbing the GOP is likely to take in this election,
the party leaders may decide George Will has a point, and aim just
a bit higher on the intellectual ladder for their nominees. One can
only hope."
Don't count on it. Look at the people on this board who idolize
Palin and Joe the Plumber.
Someone should draft George Will for 2012, though.
Les|10.31.08 @ 6:33PM|#
SIV,
Like BDB said, he held a press conference and was interviewed by
Cavuto and Couric before the digging began.
SIV|10.31.08 @ 6:37PM|#
BDB,
Are you fucking retarded? Joe didn't do anything other than ask his
question before State employee/Obama operatives Outed his
data.
What he did after that is irrelevant.
When the election is over please go back to DU.
joe|10.31.08 @ 6:37PM|#
"OK what did he too before they went into his
background?"
John McCain used him as a talking point thirty-three some odd times
in the debate.
Which means that SIV will now start slagging the McCain campaign
for turning this private citizen who just wanted to be left alone
into a the main attraction of a media circus.
Nah, jes' jokin'! Like that would ever happen.
Pete Guither|10.31.08 @ 6:39PM|#
What a bizarre conversation. Here, in this post, we have a
report on a candidate for Vice-President of the United States of
America, who makes a grossly factually wrong statement about the
First Amendment to the Constitution.
This isn't a difference of opinion. It is news and it should be
frightening to anyone who believes in the Constitution and liberty
(and I've been led to believe that libertarians fit into that
category).
I even assumed that Riggs' inclusion of the text of the First in
the post was a form of snark, since certainly we would all have it
memorized.
And yet, when I read the comments, it's like I've moved to a
playground with retorts like "Oh yeah? Well, Bobby eats
paste."
What's up with that?
JLE|10.31.08 @ 6:40PM|#
I'm into this now. I kind of enjoy the purveyeillence. (Yes, made it up.) You are all mistaken. Seriously. I can't tell the sarcasm from the honesty.
joe|10.31.08 @ 6:42PM|#
Jaybird, do you frequently discuss how creeped out you are by
the media attention given to D-list celebrities, or did the thought
just occur to you in reference to the particular D-list celebrity
whose alleged persecution is being used as a talking point by every
Republican in America?
Because this is a long standing complaint of yours, using this
example to make that point is going to be misunderstood by a lot of
people.
joe|10.31.08 @ 6:43PM|#
Are you fucking retarded? Joe didn't do anything other than
ask his question before State employee/Obama operatives Outed his
data.
False. Already refuted, long ago.
Seriously, do you think this is the first person to ask Barack
Obama question in the past 21 months?
Just Plain Brian|10.31.08 @ 6:44PM|#
Joe didn't do anything other than ask his question before
McCain mentioned him over, and over, and over, and over, and over,
and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and
over, and over....in a single debate.
You're right, SIV, we should all hold Grandpa Crankypants
responsible for what he did to poor old reclusive Joe.
voxpo|10.31.08 @ 6:47PM|#
Jennifer | October 31, 2008, 6:19pm | #
...So I'd like to ask again what these "special legal and economic
privileges" are
The FEC has gone to some trouble to explain who and what is meant
by the "media exemption" in certain campaign finance rules. Some
"entities" have to NOT be exempt in order for this exemption to
have any meaning. Being exempt from a rule qualifies, I submit, as
a special legal privelege.
"The Commission has decided to revise 11 CFR 100.73 and 11 CFR
100.132 to
clarify that the media exemption applies to media entities that
cover or carry news stories, commentary and editorials on the
Internet, just as it applies to media entities that cover or carry
news stories, commentary and editorials in traditional media, such
as printed periodicals or television news programs. The Commission
is also clarifying that the media exemption protects news stories,
commentaries, and editorials no matter in what medium they are
published. Therefore, the Commission has added "website" to the
list of media in the exemption and is also adding "any Internet or
electronic publication" to address publication of news stories,
commentaries, or editorials in electronic form on the Internet.53
In so doing, the Commission recognizes that the media exemption is
available to media entities that cover or carry news stories,
commentaries, or editorials solely on the Internet, as well as to
media entities that cover or carry news stories, commentaries, and
editorials solely in traditional media or in both traditional media
and on the Internet."
http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2006/mtgdoc06-20.pdf
*|10.31.08 @ 6:47PM|#
Joe the Plumber has a book planned. Should be a RIVETING
read.
Then perhaps a David Zucker movie?
SIV|10.31.08 @ 6:53PM|#
One last time Democrat Party hacks:
The media and John McCain weren't the chilling invaders of JTPs
privacy.It was the Government employee/Obama campaign
operatives.
Cue up the "Liberal Fascism" references.....
You know, the guys who threatened the TV stations if they ran NRA
ads.
joe|10.31.08 @ 6:54PM|#
I still want Shannon Love to explain to me how objecting to the way the McCain campaign has turned Wurtzelbacher into a novelty - look, everyone, I have friend who's a plumber! An actual plumber. Just call him "Joe the Plumber," he loves that, right Joe? - is elitist, and how exactly New England plays into this little theory.
joe|10.31.08 @ 6:55PM|#
One last time Democrat Party hacks:
Heh. "Democrat Party."
Yeah, you tell those partisan hacks, SIV.
*rolls eyes*
Scary Monsters|10.31.08 @ 6:58PM|#
SIV: The media and John McCain...
Hmm, McCain. That name sounds familiar. Wasn't he a footnote in the
2008 Presidential election?
JLE|10.31.08 @ 6:59PM|#
If there is anyone here who is a true blue dem (or anything else), I'd be surprised. All seem to be as disillusioned as I am.
MAX HATS|10.31.08 @ 7:05PM|#
OLS, why do you DoThis with CerainWords?
If a guy writes like a mental patient, acts like a mental patient,
then he probably is a mental patient.
BDB|10.31.08 @ 7:06PM|#
Isn't that cute. SIV thinks I'm the partisan
hack.
SIV will be a trip on election night.
BDB|10.31.08 @ 7:09PM|#
But remember, having a free press is a violation of Sarah Palin's First Amendment rights. Or something.
SIV|10.31.08 @ 7:22PM|#
BDB,
You are voting for Obama.Nearly everything you post here is
netroots message.You aren't in joe's league but then he is an
admitted partisan and often writes his own stuff.
BDB|10.31.08 @ 7:26PM|#
SIV:
You got it backwards.
You're voting for McCain. Nearly everything you write here is copy
and pasted from The Corner or Free Republic. You're not at TallDave
levels, but then again he's an admitted partisan.
joe|10.31.08 @ 7:34PM|#
You are voting for Obama.
As are most independents, by about a ten point margin.
Point?
Seitz|10.31.08 @ 7:52PM|#
Oh Noes! They released public information about (not) Joe the
(not) plumber that any douchebag with a Lexis account and 15
seconds could find out!! What will the libtards stoop too
next?!?!
This is like the flap over the release of the first fiver digits of
Palin's SSN. Again, 15 seconds and a Lexis account is all it takes.
But somehow, it's some huge invasion of privacy. I'm sure (not) Joe
the (not) plumber will be whining about this (not) invasion of
privacy when he signs his record and/or book deal.
Hey, I'm a partisan dem. BDB wavers, for better or worse. SIV is as
big a rightie hack as I am a leftie hack. At least I admit it.
SIV's just a lying jackass.
BDB|10.31.08 @ 7:55PM|#
FWIW (and this isn't news for those of you that followed my back
and forth with The Angry Optimist the other day) I'm voting for
Barr, because he convinced me it's the best way of saying "You done
fucked up, GOP" whereas voting for Obama would be seen as an
endorsement for Government-run health are and protectionism and all
sorts of other stuff that I don't endorse.
But I do want to see the Republicans get their asses handed to
them. Srssly, Joe the Plumber. This has been their campaign
strategy for three weeks--something out of a children's book!
|10.31.08 @ 7:56PM|#
"D-list Minor Celebrities"
See, I look at what made JTP a D-List Minor Celebrity.
The spark seems to be that he asked Obama a hostile question.
Am I mistaken on this? After he did this, he got mentioned by
McCain (a billion times). Then I started learning about his medical
bill history.
I know, I know. The fact that he showed up on Fox and Friends or
whatever it was means that his medical bill history is fair
game.
I remain creeped out.
Paris Hilton notwithstanding.
Just Plain Brian|10.31.08 @ 8:09PM|#
See, I look at what made JTP a D-List Minor Celebrity.
The spark seems to be that he asked Obama a hostile question.
Am I mistaken on this?
Yes, you are mistaken. The story began with him asking a question,
but if he had not been name-checked to death in that debate the
story would have been over. Even the name "Joe The Plumber" was a
result of the debate, and not a result of the question by
itself.
I remain creeped out.
Agreed, the mutually-parasitic relationship that D-List Minor
Celebrities have with the press is certainly creepy.
MAX HATS|10.31.08 @ 8:10PM|#
What a bizarre conversation. Here, in this post, we have a report on a candidate for Vice-President of the United States of America, who makes a grossly factually wrong statement about the First Amendment to the Constitution.
This isn't a difference of opinion. It is news and it should be frightening to anyone who believes in the Constitution and liberty (and I've been led to believe that libertarians fit into that category).
I even assumed that Riggs' inclusion of the text of the First in the post was a form of snark, since certainly we would all have it memorized.
And yet, when I read the comments, it's like I've moved to a playground with retorts like "Oh yeah? Well, Bobby eats paste."
What's up with that?
When one feels compelled to defend the likes of Sarah Palin and
George W. Bush from any and all criticism, it's hard to stay 100%
coherent.
Besides, knowing what the Bill of Rights says is elitism.
And as we all know, the only thing separating elitism from full on
Red Communism is two news cycles.
24AheadDotCom|10.31.08 @ 8:38PM|#
Pete Guither: this isn't a libertarian site. It's a Kochtopus
site; big difference. The sockpuppets here will support just about
anything they're told in order to oppose those who are presented to
them as the other side.
James Butler: if you have any problems with any of my list of
nineteen non-partisan reasons to oppose Obama, please specify
exactly what those problems are. Otherwise, your comment is simply
a content-free ad hom.
content-free ad hom|10.31.08 @ 8:50PM|#
Does LonelyWackoff's lists of Nineteen Reasons for this and Fourteen Points of that remind anyone else of "I have here in my hand a list of 205 known..."?
gmatts|10.31.08 @ 8:51PM|#
So it seems that the 2 best things the McCain campaign has going
for it is Palin and Joe the Plumber.
On Palin:
She got the base all fired up, which I guess was good. Then she
started talking w/ out the aid of a script and actually had to
articulate opinions on issues. Leaving aside her inability to even
form a coherent statement, she seems to be woefully ignorant of any
issue pertaining to the specifics of her office. The 1st hill she
had to climb was to be able to assure voters that she was up to the
job of POTUS should something happen. That has not gone well. Now
we are at the point where a large percentage of people don't even
find her qualified to be VPOTUS.
Joe the Plumber also got off to a hot start. But now we learn that
his name is not Joe, he may not even be a plumber, and his dream of
owning this plumbing business seemed to be about as realistic as
him planning to win the lottery. And as for his plumbing skills, he
is either the absolute best or worst plumber in his area. With the
amount of free time that this guy appears to have, either every
toilet in his area is functioning so well because of him and he's
not needed or the people have decided to not let him go anywhere
near their pipes.
|10.31.08 @ 8:55PM|#
How strange to quote the Constitution. When was the last time America bothered to use it?
Fluffy|10.31.08 @ 8:57PM|#
Jaybird,
It's nice that you're creeped out, but who cares, really?
First of all, there are a couple of distinctions being made here
that don't deserve to be made:
1. The distinction between press and non-press [except for actual
government employees].
2. The distinction between "private citizen" and "celebrity".
Anyone who does not have access to government information, or does
not have a duty of care of some kind, is entitled to investigate
anything and anyone they want. It doesn't matter if the object of
their inquiry is John McCain, Paris Hilton or the first ten names
in the phone book.
It was an abuse of government office or position for state workers
to troll state databases for information on this guy. But there's
no indication that any of that data ended up being reported. Public
records were the source of the reports about his plumber's license
and his tax lien; both of those matters are in the public domain,
and Joe had no expectation of privacy for either of them,
reasonable or no.
|10.31.08 @ 8:58PM|#
When you do have a privileged group with extraordinary power
(in part granted by government monopoly) who then turn in mass
against one segment of the polity or the other, then you do begin
to have de facto if not de jure censorship.
I've failed to notice the MSM turning en masse (not "in mass")
against Palin, unless you're counting Fox News as not part of the
mainstream, which their audience numbers would belie.
Seriously, have you thought this through and actually think that
the First Amendment means the government should protect politicians
from criticism?
That said, Obama, Biden, and McCain (and virtually everyone in
Congress) have shown an abysmal ignorance of the meaning of most of
the Bill of Rights, or else understand it and have cynically
decided to that it's in their best interest to violate the
Constitution repeatedly and flagrantly soon after taking their oath
of office.
So, the question is, is Palin somewhat more or less worse than
Obama or Biden regarding the constitution, including this fresh
data point to ponder? I say they're all pretty close to the same
level of badness. I mean, all four supported the frickin'
bailout.
That being said -- strong work, Mike Riggs. Good article.
|10.31.08 @ 9:07PM|#
I haven't followed joe the plumber news. But searching databases for information of people you want to target for whatever reason is SOP in the information age. It's a side affect of little brother.
|10.31.08 @ 9:17PM|#
Just Plain Brian wrote: " The story began with him asking a
question, but if he had not been name-checked to death in that
debate the story would have been over. Even the name "Joe The
Plumber" was a result of the debate, and not a result of the
question by itself."
Actually, what brought Joe The Plumber into the media wasn't even
his question. It was Obama's use of the phrase "share the wealth"
in his response, and McCain's desire to use that to portray Obama
as a rabid Socialist.
But for those three words of Obama's, JTP would still be an unknown
Ohio plumber.
The way JTP provided a personal narrative in his question was the
bait for journalists. Journalists *love* digging into a
narrative.
Had JTP phrased his question as a hypothetical, journalists
wouldn't have dug into it. (Not that I mean to blame JTP, I'm just
sayin'.)
Seitz|10.31.08 @ 9:23PM|#
Public records were the source of the reports about his
plumber's license and his tax lien; both of those matters are in
the public domain, and Joe had no expectation of privacy for either
of them, reasonable or no.
Don't bother, Fluffy. Sure, they're public records, that any
citizen could access if they wanted, and had some initiative. But
Jaybird didn't know about that information, which means it's creepy
to search public records apparently. In other words, tell Jaybird
something he didn't know, and he/she gets a little creeped out.
Fascinating Captain|11.1.08 @ 1:31AM|#
That a Quaylean VP choice continues to be given status of secretly trumping gov't as we know it and becoming dictator of the world. iT IS BREATHTAKING WHAT A PAIR OF lIBRARIAN gLASSES can do to tweak reality for a good sum of people. Wasn't there some sort of huge bail=out legislation we could fixate on instead? I guess I dreamed (nightmared) that. Sorry. I am back on my meds now. Sorry for the outburst...Sarah Palin is about to...
My Barack Pages|11.1.08 @ 1:54AM|#
Lies that life is African-American and/or Eurocentric Western
anti-Feminist communicated to my cranial contents I explored in my
subconsious state while I caught up on sleep. We'll meet at the
Presidential debates, sweating profusely. Oh but I was so much
over-the-top mature beyond my years back then. Now? Heck, I am
potentially the youngest one yet!
Just trying to translate Dylan to modern readers.
|11.1.08 @ 10:05AM|#
"Joe had no expectation of privacy for either of them,
reasonable or no."
Yeah, yeah. It's one of those weird things when you believe in
stuff like "right to privacy" and other unenumerated rights.
People come up and they explain to you how the world really
works.
I appreciate you explaining to me how the world really works,
Fluffy.
GILMORE|11.1.08 @ 3:34PM|#
Orange Line Speshul Bus | October 31, 2008, 5:14pm | #
I've decided that telling people they're idiots is the best way to
get them to click my links.
Great.
Have you noticed that these few people who do "click your links"
return, and universally begin calling you a dumb, diaper-wearing
hysterical cunt every day, at every possible opportunity?
Well done there. You're a celebrity douchebag
GILMORE|11.1.08 @ 4:05PM|#
I realize now I was mocking someone else already mocking
Lonewacko
This, in my view, is inexcusable. I apologize sincerely.
To lonewacko himself, I reiterate my total utter contempt and
disdain. My only relief is that within days, you will quite
possibly have a reason to finally go the fuck away.
mnuez|11.1.08 @ 4:57PM|#
Come on, we all understood what she meant. So what if she has some misunderstanding regarding the finer points of constitutional law? It's not like she's running for president or anything.
Amanda the Plummer|11.1.08 @ 5:06PM|#
Christopher the Plummer | November 1, 2008, 1:56am | #
How do you solve a problem like Obama?
If any of you fucking pricks move, I'll execute every last
motherfucking one of you!
mnuez|11.1.08 @ 5:16PM|#
Shannon Love wrote:
joe,
Calling someone "Joe the Plumber" is the elitist rich guy equivalent of calling someone "my black friend, Tony." Hey, look at me, I know someone who works for a living!
It comes as absolutely no surprise that a someone such as yourself would think that.
Coming as I do from a rural middle-class background as well as a
long line of small business as well as knowing many people who
started out humble and worked for decades to be "rich", I can say
that "Joe the Plumber" crystalizes differences between the present
day left and right.
You see a plumber who will always be working stiff and can never aspire to anything more. His only hope for a better life lays in handouts from his betters. I see someone with dreams and ambition who could very well rise far up the economic ladder by dent of his own efforts.
The elitism you see is your own dark reflection.
And Shannon wrote this because he isn't very bright.
Joe/Sam The Plumber/Non-Plumber was making some 35K a year and
actually had very close to a 0% chance of "buying a business real
soon that's going to be making over $250,000 a year". This
"business purchase" of Joe's was something that he later explained
he had "thought about" some six years earlier when he was
first hired to apprentice for a neighborhood
plumber.
People like you enjoy spreading the nonsensical rumor that with
just a "good idea" and some "hard work", you too can become rich!
Why look at Sam Shmuckler who bought a lottery ticket an... okay,
bad example, look at Joe The Plumber who just asked a question at a
political get-together and then became a
Congressman/Talk-Show-Host/(???)... you can do it too!
The truth of the matter of course is that almost fuckin NOBODY goes
from rags to riches in this country. The vast vast VAST majority of
the wealthy people in this country were born wealthy. Of course
these people aren't cause celebs and (Paris Hilton aside) try to
stay pretty far from the limelight, but they are BY FAR
the majority.
Look Shannon (and fellow travelers) were we meeting in person, and
were I to give a shit, I could spend a few hours loading you down
with facts, figures and meta-data to counter the woolly vignettes
that have been made to blind you these many years, but in this
meager space this will have to suffice. I know that it will likely
not give anyone any pause but I hope that it does succeed
in providing some small aid and comfort to the few fellow non-blind
Reasonoids who may venture this far down the thread.
mnuez|11.1.08 @ 5:33PM|#
jasa said:
"Palin/Joe the Plumber 2012!"
After the drubbing the GOP is likely to take in this election, the party leaders may decide George Will has a point, and aim just a bit higher on the intellectual ladder for their nominees. One can only hope.
I hope along with you jasa, but I can't say that I see any logical
reason to be hopeful (aside for regression to the mean of
course).
One of the most frustrating things for me about this recent
campaign has been how many intelligent Conservatives creamed their
pants over the Palin pick in the first week after the announcement.
They were all going on and on about how "authentic" and "American"
and "real" (a.k.a. "non-"elitist"/intellectual/educated) she was
and how refreshing this was to see someone like that so high on the
national stage - all the fuckin while GEORGE BUSH IS THE STILL
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!!
When faced with the stark reality of such a plague of blindness of
biblical proportions (the ninth plague, fyi), one would have to be
very very naive to assume that the
leaders/commonfolk/movers-and-shakers/whatever in the Republican
Party are going to purposely look for someone of some intelligence
to head up their party four years hence.
But, again, we've still got regression to the mean so, with you
jasa, I'm keepin' my fingers crossed.
mnuez
Nathan B Forrest|11.1.08 @ 5:41PM|#
Of course without affirmative action Barack Obama would have a 4 year degree from Occidental College and be managing a Best Buy.mnuez is right, you are stuck in the class you are born into.
mnuez|11.1.08 @ 5:49PM|#
First off I gotta apologize for the occasional typo and
blockquote error. Damn you uneditable internets! (and typo-prone
mnuezzy!)
I hope this relieves me from any and all future requirements to
spellcheck or proofread.
To the point at hand, Nathan, I'm not sure if you're agreeing or
disagreeing with me but you do realize I'm sure that
exaggerating my point ad absurdum isn't going to fly with those few
Reasonoids who are smart enough for me to care about their
opinions, right?
I am a little scared though that someone might show me up
with nine vignettes about working-men-made-good, cause
that would TOTALLY refute the boring data about
overwhelming majorities and all.
mnuez|11.1.08 @ 5:55PM|#
As for Affirmative Action, it sucks that it's race-based but overall, yeah, it does help some worthy individuals get out of the slums into which they were born. Obama's not quite the best example of that (one hopes he never needed to benefit from Affirmative Action along his educational route) but as an idea affirmative action isn't entirely ridiculous.
projecthappy|11.1.08 @ 6:05PM|#
Are libertarians really defending the (possibly illegal) use of government computers to look up personal information on a citizen, just because he was mentioned in a debate? Say it isn't so.
fuckin\' fixed|11.1.08 @ 6:18PM|#
Are libertarians Democrat shills really
defending the (possibly illegal) use of government computers to
look up personal information on a citizen, just because he was
mentioned in a debate? Say it isn't so.
Yes
|11.2.08 @ 12:21AM|#
For whatever reason (I blame McCain's shameless
sloganeering) the man's livelihood and earnings became an
issue.
My recollection is that the Dem assault on Joe, which included a
number of illegal activities, began immediately, before he became a
campaign fixture. In fact, their assault served to greatly heighten
his profile. They turned a one or two news cycle story into
something that will carry straight through the election.
The Libertarian Guy|11.2.08 @ 1:45PM|#
What Joe the Plumber does to try to better himself, is his
business. What Obama's goons have done by using government tools to
dig into his life, is NOT the same as Joe being followed around by
photogs and reporters. George Orwell did not intend "1984" to be an
instruction manual.
That said, I'm not voting for McCain OR Obama. I also don't believe
there are enough *actual* racists that will abstain from choosing
Obama simply on the basis of his outer hue - for a lot of people,
it wouldn't matter if Obama were as pasty-white as Dick Gephardt;
it's the policies that matter. And a lot of people don't buy the
"high taxes and lots of government cures all ills", so hopefully
McCain's numbers won't be great, either.
Me? A 269-269 electoral split and very long, drawn-out battle,
would do this country a world of good. You can't get drama of that
caliber in the fantasy world.
VM|11.2.08 @ 7:46PM|#
yeah, LG - sounds like you're full of shit.
if you've been paying attention the past at least eight years, you
should shut the fuck up.
MJ|11.2.08 @ 8:56PM|#
"Like how the McCain campaign and the conservative media flogged
the story in an effort to turn Sam Wurtzelbacher into a media star,
before the media began paying him any attention."
So when should we expect the deep investigative journalism about
the parde of unfortunates Obama featured in his infomercial.
jtuf|11.3.08 @ 3:11AM|#
When politicians are calling for a revised fairness doctrine, accusing a campaign of writing "unfair" advertisements takes on a whole new meaning. It's just the next step in sending the first ammendment down a slippery slope.
|11.3.08 @ 12:36PM|#
"or abridging the freedom of speech"
So government doesn't do it.
It is not prior constraint.
The problem with this post is that you don't specify your
complaint, you simply assume that enough people are against Palin
that you can take a shot at her and people will fill in the
necessary details. I don't find your comment stimulating, but it is
circulating on the web for no other reason but its
opportunism.
People in dumb houses shouldn't throw insults.
|11.4.08 @ 4:10PM|#
Sigh... it would help if people actually read the law and no I
am not referring to Palin.
I really suggest Chemerinsky's book on constitutional law as a
cliff notes.
(Note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Chemerinsky's )
This post and unfortunately the author of this reason article seems
to confuse the idea of "State Action" and does not seem to have
done the basic research on the exceptions to it.
Simply he implies that private actors cannot be restricted by the
Constitution. This is untrue since it does not state the whole
truth and he passes a lie by most of the commenters. Private actors
CAN be held to the constitutional standards government is under
certain conditions for instance "Exercise by a private entity of
powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State". The real
question is if this is happening, if this is what she implied, or
if the author is competent to judge her.
To interpret Palin's comments it seems that she implied that the
newspaper is impermissibly overstepping its bounds by performing
monopolistic censorship, a function of government, (and a violation
of antitrust laws).
Should we interpret this this way? Considering that she has been
more like J.S. Mill, I would say yes. However even if you do not
agree realize that it seems like the author is in fact falling prey
to the accusation that he has made against Palin, that someone does
not know the law or the Constitution (Ironically).
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245