Palin Complains Hackers Violated Free Speech, But She Scrubs Even ?Benign? Content From Her Own Website
Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on December 10th, 2010 5:39 am by HL
Palin Complains Hackers Violated Free Speech, But She Scrubs Even ?Benign? Content From Her Own Website
Yesterday, Sarah Palin’s website came under attack from pro-WikiLeaks hackers angry at her criticism of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Palin e-mailed ABC News and said, “This is what happens when you exercise the First Amendment and speak against his sick, un-American espionage efforts.” Her spokeswoman added that Wikileaks supporters claim to be “in favor of […]
Yesterday, Sarah Palin’s website came under attack from pro-WikiLeaks hackers angry at her criticism of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Palin e-mailed ABC News and said, “This is what happens when you exercise the First Amendment and speak against his sick, un-American espionage efforts.” Her spokeswoman added that Wikileaks supporters claim to be “in favor of free speech yet they attack Sarah Palin for exercising her free speech.”
While shutting down Palin’s website is both illegal and inappropriate, Palin is hardly one to call out free speech hypocrisies. Her Facebook page, for example, is strictly policed for content that Palin doesn’t find appropriate. Time magazine writes in its current issue that “eight Palin lieutenants scattered across the country were quietly given the job of policing her site. To this day, they scrub anything that is threatening, pornographic or unfit for children; that questions Barack Obama’s citizenship or the parentage of Palin’s toddler son Trig; or that hints that the government was behind the 9/11 attacks.”
As Slate’s John Dickerson noted recently even polite disagreements with Palin are regularly expunged:
The comments on Sarah Palin’s Facebook page offer a relatively unbroken chain of adulation, applause, and approval: “Tell it LIKE IS MRS. PALIN.” “God Bless you Sarah!! Thanks for all you do!!” “Palin 2012!!!!” No matter the topic of her posting—an endorsement of a candidate or a remark about energy policy—scores call for her to run for office.
[But] there are a host of benign posts deleted from supporters who simply disagreed with the person Palin chose to endorse in a particular note. A typical one addressed her endorsement of Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire for U.S. Senate: “I can’t believe Sarah endorsed Ayotte. Ayotte is not a Momma Grizzley, she’s just another progressive in Rep. clothing. The 912 group I belong to and some of the other groups in the state are disappointed by this endorsement.”
This [deletion] caused a little stir among the commenters. “Why are the few comments expressing disagreement with this endorsement being deleted?” wrote one. “Just because some of us disagree with the endorsement doesn’t mean that we don’t follow Sarah Palin.” Alfred Petross wrote, “I just wish you would listen to me as a resident of the 3rd Congressional District. All I am doing is voicing my opinion and my posts keep getting deleted….” (These comments were then deleted.)
Palin’s definition of free speech has long been fungible, and essentially extends only to people who agree with her. For example, during the 2008 presidential campaign, reporters began to described Palin’s continuous comments about Bill Ayers and Rev. Jeremiah Wright as “negative attacks” on Barack Obama. Palin responded that “[i]f [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, 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.” Glenn Greenwald noted at the time that “Palin here is also giving voice to the standard right-wing grievance instinct: that it’s inherently unfair when they’re criticized. And now, apparently, it’s even unconstitutional.”
Given Palin’s history of being worried about free speech only for herself and complete ideological allies, her current whining about First Amendment rights sounds a lot like the governor who cried wolf.
Halliburton May Pay $500 Million To Nigerian Government To Settle Case And Keep Cheney Out Of Jail
As ThinkProgress previously reported, earlier this month, the Nigerian government moved to “charge former Vice President Dick Cheney in a massive bribery case involving $180 million in kickbacks paid to Nigerian lawmakers, who awarded a $6 billion natural gas pipeline contract to Halliburton subsidiary KBR when Cheney was running the company.” As a part of […]
As ThinkProgress previously reported, earlier this month, the Nigerian government moved to “charge former Vice President Dick Cheney in a massive bribery case involving $180 million in kickbacks paid to Nigerian lawmakers, who awarded a $6 billion natural gas pipeline contract to Halliburton subsidiary KBR when Cheney was running the company.” As a part of the charge, the Nigerian government is seeking an arrest warrant through Interpol for the former vice president.
Now, GlobalPost is reporting that the company is in talks with the Nigerian government to arrive at a settlement. Sources within the Nigerian government informed GlobalPost that a possible plea bargain could “involve a $500 million settlement“:
Halliburton is planning to make a plea bargain in former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s corruption case, Nigerian officials told GlobalPost. […]
However, Halliburton is in talks with Nigerian officials to make a plea bargain in the case, said Femi Babafemi, spokesman for Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the agency which has pressed the charges against Cheney.
“The companies are asking for a plea bargain, we are reviewing their request, we are talking with them, but we have not gone far with the talks yet,” Babafemi told GlobalPost. Although Babafemi did not give further details, other sources within the agency said the plea bargain might involve a $500 million settlement.
GlobalPost goes on to note that “Cheney and three other top executives could face sentences of three years in a Nigerian prison if convicted of the charges in the 16-count indictment.” One has to wonder how the employees and stockholders of the company feel about it possibly sacrificing half a billion dollars to keep Cheney and other executives out of jail. (HT: emptywheel)
