Hating to pay even meager additional attention to the Magilla from Wasilla that is Sarah (sigh) Palin, it has now become impossible not to comment on her latest, and perhaps most egregious misapplication of the notion of “freedom” since she burst upon us fully formed as the elderly McCain’s doomed VP choice.
We won’t spend a minute talking about the Tragedy in Tucson, since we can add nothing to the discussion not already said.
But we will talk about the notion of what “freedom of speech” really means, and why Palin and everyone who has ever invoked “free speech” when stung by criticism, has it all backwards. As a case in point, the bespectacled Palin, in a wanna-be-Presidential moment, took to the viral-video-sphere with a Tucson-inspired diatribe about how people who criticize her are somehow invading her right as a citizen to speak out.
Gag me, as was once upon a time asserted quite effectively, with a spoon.
Here is the news:
The constitutional notion of freedom of speech posits that the government can make no law preventing free expression of ideas.
And that’s it.
If people don’t like what you say, if people criticize you, if your words make them angry and not want to vote for you, if they call you names and find you tacky–too bad. In no way does “freedom of speech” ever, ever mean “freedom from criticism by other citizens”. When your words are criticized, that is a function of OTHER PEOPLE exercizing their right to free speech. No amount of opprobrium from others who disagree with you can ever amount to an abrogation of your free speech rights.
“Freedom of Speech” means only this: that the government can make no law restricting it.
Get used to it, Ms. Palin, and stop being a crybaby.