Well, now that I think of it (way harder than I should, by the way), I guess Ms. Palin has a right to say anything she wants.
But that doesn't make what she has to say right.
Or even remotely correct......
ABC News has the latest story:
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.
(Sarah) 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."
And Glenn Greenwald has the analysis:
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.
All of which has me wondering if Ms. Palin and her handlers think, perhaps, that the Unencyclopedia is actually Wikipedia, only betterer.
After all, such a moronic madcap mix-up just might explain a whole lot when it comes to Ms. Palin's ridiculous comments regarding biomedical usefulness of, say, Fruit Fly Research.
Regardless, it would appear that even Hockey Moms are now starting to sing 'You Don't Speak For Me Sarah Palin'.....