Posted on 03/03/2011 8:29:20 PM PST by Bigtigermike
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin clarified remarks posted on Twitter this week in response to a Supreme Court ruling in favor of a church that demonstrates at military funerals, saying she was making a point about a double standard on free speech, not that the group shouldn’t have the right to protest.
Her quote was interpreted by many news outlets, including The Daily Caller, to mean that she disagreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling, although in a new statement exclusive to TheDC, Palin said she agreed with the ruling in favor of the church.
“Obviously my comment meant that when we’re told we can’t say ‘God bless you’ in graduation speeches or pray before a local football game but these wackos can invoke God’s name in their hate speech while picketing our military funerals, it shows ridiculous inconsistency,” Palin told TheDC. “I wasn’t calling for any limit on free speech, and it’s a shame some folks tried to twist my comment in that way. I was simply pointing out the irony of an often selective interpretation of free speech rights.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Again, What pattern of clarification? You said it, but you seem to bactrack from it - all Sarah said in her tweet was - paraphrasing : “they are allowed to spew their hate but we can’t invoke God in some places” if media interpet that wrong on porpose I mind you then we are all doom
Right,a bunch of clueless punks on FR spewing garbage all over the site and half of them are from media matters that are being tracked!Great idea.
Unbelievable.
Her comment was right on target. You should give it a rest.
No! Because she never said that she disagreed with the Court in anyway - we are talking about the liberal MSM that is looking for blaring news to get hits mostly on their websites - just like the other day when news had: ‘Palin bashes Michele Obama’ but when I saw the video, Sarah was just making a light hearted joke. But you still can’t prove outside of the liberal MSM interpetation where she was making such an ascertion!
Already been done. They tried it in 2006. Giving RINOS power in the republican party not only lost us both houses but got us McCain in 2008. They started banning those who threatened not to vote for McCain until the real conservatives were either gone for the rest of the election cycle or banned or just too afraid to speak out against McCain.
It didn't work. Best to discuss things whether you agree of disagree. Getting new blood and throwing out the old is a liberal's way of dealing with those who do not share the same opinions.
They are commies. We are not.
There are double standards. I didn’t find Palin’s statement confusing. As for limits to “freedom of speech” well there are limits. Freedom of speech has not until modern times become the license to put forth into the public space every form of vulgarity and obscenity. That said we are faced with an aggressive liberal effort to limit political speech labeled as hate speech and such which is very dangerous. However I don’t believe freedom of speech extends to a private funeral and I do believe that individuals should be able to designate funerals as private closed events with barriers setup to make sure that attendees are not faced with people like the Westboro people. I feel the same about protests at houses of political figures. You may have a right to speech but you don’t have the right to block public streets or harass people especially in a private venue though the left after Prop 8 passage did all those things.
I think conservatives have made a mistake by not sticking to the traditional definition of freedom of speech and instead falling for what is essentially a liberal bastardization of what was essentially protection for political speech as a source of dissemination of information which of course the left are keen to limit where as they are willing to have whatever range of nastiness in the public space provided you are not mean to their pet nasties.
I really hope this is what she believes when I first heard about this...it was really the final straw for me with her. I had huge hope for her but it is slipping away.
"Pattern"? What pattern?
Gov Palin has rarely had to clarify what she meant by her public statements. What she has been forced to do, is to explain her common sense reasoning to dopes on the left who misconstrue every word out of her mouth, and take her words out of context, in order to attack her with them.
Sadly, some here on FR take those leftstream media attacks and run with them, as their own.
SO WHAT? If Palin said it right the first time then she should not be running out to explain it again. If she said it right the first time even when the media lies, let the public see for themselves. It will discredit the left wing media. To keep running out to explain again what she meant only gives credit to the left wing media.
I rest my case. If she kept quiet, there'd be nothing to clarify and nothing for the media to misinterpret.
Palin said it right the first time.
Obviously someone did or palin would not have come out to "clearify" what she meant. That's the point.
No, this just shows that Palin still does not grasp the difference between private and publicly funded speech under the law.
Otherwise she would keep on mixing them up and suggesting that one has anything to do with the other.
And besides, saying “I side with the church on this one” sounds foolish too. With this ruling, the USSC made hate speech protected speech.
i know its hard to give up all your govt. freebies but, we cant afford it anymore.. your just gonna have to get a job, relying on big bro Obama and gonna cut it anymore, he wants to quit you anyhow says he tied of gettin’ scratched with teeth..
[It was hilarious to see the confusion amongst the Palintards last night.]
Actually, I think it was the pissant-tards who had the problem, like usual. But I guess pissant types can’t even read a 140 word Tweet and figure things out without botching it.
Exactly! And she should allow herself to be forced to explain anything. I understood her the first time, you understand her... so she should not be doing that. That's the pattern I'm talking about.
That's the Job of Rush Limbaugh and Hannity to explain and expose the media and they do an excellent job.
What would be wrong with disagreeing with the SCOTUS? It is contemptable what those freaks are doing at funerals. I believe they were very wrong.
What they do is not free speech. As Alito said, it is a verbal assault. It is cruel and wicked speech aimed to hurt those who are already suffering. It isn’t meant to make a point, it is meant to hurt.
Another reason that Sarah is not ready for the Resolute Desk, in my opinion.
Sarah is nearly notorious for having the courage to say exactly what's on her mind. She calls 'em like she sees them, and that is a level of fearlessness that is almost non-existent in politicians.
That she ever takes the time to explain what she meant to the dopes who can't understand plain English, is a testament to her unbelievable endurance and patience.
The truth is, they're going to take everything she says, and spin it to attack her. She stands athwart the leftist agenda more stridently than any other public figure, so this is to be expected of the left.
Don't be surprised, though, when her tone changes to one of outright hostility toward the left. Sarah has the courage, and the understanding of where this country stands in its history, to do that. At some point, she's going to drop any remaining veneer of social graces with the left, and level both barrels at them.
[this pattern of day after clarifications on what she really meant has not gone unnoticed ]
Except she isn’t clarifying her words, she’s clarifying the distortions, that’s a big difference. What part of “death panels” did you misunderstand? Or when she mentioned WTF? Palin isn’t having a problem communicating, any more than Walker is in Wisconsin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.