Con Law 101

While checking my email, this headline by the Huffington Post caught my eye (AOL had made it a top link):

Martin Bashir: Sarah Palin Might Be Breaking Federal Law On Bus Tour 

Intrigued, I clicked to it. Here is the key part:

Then, Bashir said that the former Alaska governor might be breaking the law:

"In fact, the whole thing could be in breach of a federal law because the United States Flag Code establishes important rules for the use and display of the stars and stripes, the flag of the United States. Under standards of respect and etiquette, it's made clear that the flag of the United States should never be used for any advertising purpose whatsoever. Yet that's precisely what Sarah Palin is doing. She's using the flag of the United States for her own financial purposes. She drapes herself in the stars and stripes and makes millions of dollars in the process. This has got nothing to do with the presidency and everything to do with filling her pockets. And by raising her profile, she raises her income. It is as simple as that. So she was right when she said that hers is not a campaign bus. It's a cash bus and she'll keep it rolling for as long as she can."

Bashir is seemingly mistaken, however. The American flag is used in advertising very frequently, and the Flag Code is actually a voluntary one.

The Huffington blogger is correct, and Bashir is definitely mistaken. The flag can be used in advertising, so Palin can put its likeness on her tour bus (which is what Bashir accused her of doing, but the blogger failed to explain). Not only can Palin use the flag on her bus, she can legally burn the flag if she wanted to. 

Why did AOL link to this obviously false charge? Will any attack on Palin be repeated, even if its blatantly untrue?