More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Bob Franken

Bob Franken

Posted: August 20, 2010 09:38 AM

First Amendment Foolishness

What's Your Reaction:

So let's get this straight Sarah (may I call you Sarah?). You fiercely defend talk show host Laura Schlessinger's repeated use the "N-word" on her radio program because of her First Amendment protections but oppose the exercise of Muslims' First Amendment rights to build a Mosque near the 9/11 site.

To review the recent Palin Twittergrams: re:Schlessinger: "Don't retreat...reload!" (What does that even mean?) and her constitutional privileges "ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence her" (which is almost 2cute, but hey, the Freedom of Expression she cites for Schlessinger applies 2her2.)

But when the Mamma Grizzly roared from her cave at Fox News about the lower Manhattan Islamic Center, that was a "stab in the heart" which didn't deserve the Freedom of Religion in that same very same opening sentence in the Bill of Rights.

"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."

It almost fits into one of Palin's beloved Twitter messages. In a tweetshell it guarantees the rights 2worship, 2speak freely, 2report the news, 2peaceably assemble and petition.

I hope this doesn't get to complicated but it's the Second Amendment that has been ruled to allow Palin and her posse something to "reload."

What is always amazing us how politicians engage in constitutional expedience, citing that precious document when it suits their posturing and ignoring or distorting it when it does not.

That is hardly unique to those on the Right. The Left and even what remains of the Middle ground are all littered with inconvenient principles that didn't fit a point-of-view. And before we get to hard on elected officials and the wannabes, we should note that Supreme Court justices do it all the time and so do judges on all the lower courts.

It's really dangerous when someone is pandering to emotions and prejudice. It's not just Palin. In the case of the Mosque the national political zoo is full of panderers.

We need to take a breath. When someone can excite her followers by resisting a house of tolerance but supporting the use of the "N-word", we have to have to examine our INtolerance as well as those who make it a habit of exploiting it.

They play a dangerous game with their First Amendment right to free expression, but all of us have the right to express our rights to reject their rabble rousing.


 

Follow Bob Franken on Twitter: www.twitter.com/frankenb

 
 
  • Comments
  • 8
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sean777
02:54 AM on 09/16/2010
Laura Schlessinger used to be a “media doctor†so her market appeal is to be likeable by large audiences expecting a “Doctor†bound by an ethics code broadcasting, the moment Schlessinger decided to joint the Tanton’s eugenics agenda (1) in her speech she is no longer media marketable material anymore so no commercial media organization will hire Laura Schlessinger anymore. Nobody is taking away her First amendment rights she can chose to broadcast with Tom Metsker from his personal bunker (2). Outrageous behavior only works for Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck since they admitted to be only media personalities without any formal education so no ethics code applies to them ergo these bigoted clowns can broadcast without conflicts but nobody wants a female radio anchor version of Dr. Hannibal Lecter broadcasting in USA. Nothing will be more dangerous than unethical “Doctors†in streaming media.

(1) The Tanton network-FAIR-Eugenics agenda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvBwuAtetl4

(2) Tom Metsker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKpzwDUafRY&feature=related
10:48 AM on 08/20/2010
She''s infringing on my right to make fun of her baby!!!
10:00 AM on 08/20/2010
What does erecting a building have to do with free speech? No one is saying anything and the intention of the Mosque is not to "make a statement" and making a statement with a building isn't considered speech.
Whether or not it should be built is another matter.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:24 AM on 08/20/2010
It has everything to do with the 1st amendment. Palin bemoans the "mosque" because it offends her sensibility but is indifferent to the sensibilities of those who are offended by the use of the n word. get it?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
GlenParked
10:28 AM on 08/20/2010
Your response is representative of what ails this country, and the reason our society is circling the toilet bowl as it's headed down the drain. Why don't you try actually reading the First Amendment of the US Constitution, then re-read the article above (presuming you actually read it in the first place, which I highly doubt), then see if you can connect the dots the author was making. We, the citizens of the United States, have a duty to be knowledgable about the pressing issues of our time, rather than reacting to the emotional rush inspired by the nonsensical Sarah Palins that litter our consciousness.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:48 PM on 08/20/2010
What does the 1st Amendment say concerning religion?