Legal Commentary

I'll write about the "Ground Zero" "mosque" (neither term being quite accurate) shortly.  But I am piqued by this story (yes, I read TV Guide) about Sarah Palin's reaction to Dr. Laura Schlessinger's decision to give up her radio program after what has been described as an "N-word rant" on the show last week.  On her Twitter feed, Palin said of Schlessinger's decision, which came after significant public condemnation of her words, that Schlessinger's "1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence" her.  (Apparently that's how one talks on Twitter.  Sigh.)  She said the situation was not "American [and] not fair," and added, "Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists."

This is a strange line of argument for someone who has been such a vocal opponent of the decision to build a Muslim center two blocks from Ground Zero.  Palin has argued that even if the mosque's backers have a right to build at that location, they should not, apparently because the sheer presence of a mosque close to this "hallowed ground" is offensive.  (One can, of course, believe that this mosque's particular backers are objectionable.  But Palin's argument is broader -- it is about building "a mosque" in this location, not about these individuals building this mosque.)  And she has been full-throated in bringing public pressure to bear on the mosque's backers to desist in their plans. 

In other words, when Dr. Schlessinger repeatedly uses the word "nigger" on a radio show and elicits substantial condemnation for it, if that public pressure succeeds then the good doctor has lost her First Amendment rights.  But when Palin and others attempt to use public pressure to push a mosque to back down from its plans to locate in a particular area, hoping (obviously) to succeed in making them back down, that is quite different -- and certainly not "Constitutional obtructionism!"

Let me make clear that I am not saying people are not entitled to object to the mosque's decision, on good grounds or (mostly, in my view) bad ones.  What I am saying is that Palin appears not to notice, or not to care about, the inconsistency between her view that the use of public pressure against Dr. Schlessinger for obviously intemperate remarks is somehow a violation of Schlessinger's First Amendment rights, and her view that it is entirely appropriate to use public pressure, including pressure from prominent political and public figures, to attempt to get the mosque to refrain from doing something that she herself concedes it has the right to do. 

I have broken two general personal rules about blogging in this post.  I have used stronger language than I usually do (see the title), and I have made what a few might see as a partisan post.  (If it makes anyone feel better, I was quite unimpressed by Senator Reid's words this week.)  I have at least put Palin's name in quotes in the title of the post: I do not know whether she writes her own Twitter posts or whether she pays someone to write gibberish on her behalf.  But gibberish it is.