The point of that is to say that I have absolutely no idea where Sarah Palin was coming from when she said this:
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.”
(I came across this originally on Balloon Juice)
This is misrepresenting what she's done, and a not-so-subtle attack on the Press for calling her on her attacks. More pressing, however, is her apparent misunderstanding as to what the 1st Amendment is.
The Apple weighs in on this topic himself here: vgdrgfdgjyhygfbghjyjhfgjyjyjyfhgtghyjyktjhftgjfhtjhjuuuuyhytfggjughyjyhjuuuuuhgghhyujjuju