Is there any precedent for the Moveon amendment?

[Jed Dilligan]

Has Congress censured private organizations for public speech before?

Just wondering.

[Kagemusha]

1. Censure's allowed.

Senate has a right to free speech too.

[Blashyrkh]

2. Way to completely not answer the question.

I don't know. I suspect not.

[Hissyspit]

3. Yes, Senate has a right to make complete asses of themselves.

It's part of the Balance of Powers. Most of the time it is the House that make asses of themselves. But if the Senate does it every once in a while, it balances things out.

[KansDem]

26. Considering the ass Bush has made of himself and the 5 asses on the Supreme Court

...who ignored the will of the people to seat their benefactor's son in the White House, it appears all three branches of the present government have excelled at assholery, resulting in even more balance of power.

Unfortunately, it has been to our detriment...

[liberalmuse]

7. Thanks for clearing that up.

I'm sure the Senate appreciates your defending their right to free speech. If only they would defend the right to free speech for the rest of us!

[pinto]

4. There are thousands of "sense of the Senate" type resolutions every

Congress. The Cornyn piece was crafted to be worded as most are. While clear it meant the "betrayus" ad, it carefully didn't mention MoveOn or an ad, but was couched in general support terms for Gen. Petraeus and the troops.

Has a newspaper ad ever been the target of a similar resolution? Not that I know of.

[Eric J in MN]

12. The resolution does mention MoveOn.

Page 3:
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2007-09-20-Cornynamendment.pdf

[pinto]

16. I see your point. Cornyn's background comments mention the ad and MoveOn. Yet the

amendment itself, which was put to a vote, starts at line 16: "It is the sense of the Senate....".

That is what Senators had to vote on. That last sentence.

A smoke and mirrors ploy? Yeah. But he knew the vague 'support Gen. Petraeus and the troops' language would pass.

[JDPriestly]

19. It is the sense of the Senate . . .

(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General by the liberal activist group Move-On.org.

. . . .

Now, how could any Democrat vote for that? That stinks. Anyone who voted for that is not a Democrat. repudiating a "liberal activist group" my eye. What idiots. The real betrayers are the so-called Democrats stupid enough to fall for such a ploy. I just cannot believe this. Do these people have petroleum jelly for brains?

[ljm2002]

25. "Do these people have petroleum jelly for brains?"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Oh and -- the answer to your question is Yes.

[TahitiNut]

15. You've been misinformed, pinto. I don't know how, but read ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1860030&mesg_id=1860542

[pinto]

18. Yeah, it was a slimy ploy. But, technically, the findings aren't the amendment,

just the justification for presentation. The Senate had to vote specifically on the wording after - "It is the sense of the Senate..."

[liberalmuse]

5. They censured a research paper once...

I guess this is a private org. Here's the link:
http://www.tegenwicht.org/13_rbt_eng/berry_and_berry.htm

And yes, it was a 'pub Congress that did it.

[Jed Dilligan]

8. Thanks, that's the closest thing I've seen yet. nt

[pinto]

17. Thanks for the find.

[JackRiddler]

6. I asked the same question in another thread

Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1859604&mesg_id=1859604

Basically, when was the last time Congress censured (by resolution) the statements of U.S. citizens or other domestic actors?

I got some inexplicable snark and no answers.

My feeling is that it's extremely rare.

[Cleita]

9. I think there is a precedent back in the 1930's in Germany. n/t

[Liberal In Texas]

10. In my experience, none. And I go back to the 60s.

They put a lot crap on record, but nothing like this shit.

[Eric J in MN]

11. Louis Farrakhan was censured for this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Farrakhan

"So I said to the members of the press, 'Why won't you go and look into what we are saying about the threats on Reverend Jackson's life?' Here the Jews don't like Farrakhan and so they call me 'Hitler'. Well that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He wasn't great for me as a Black man but he was a great German and he rose Germany up from the ashes of her defeat by the united force of all of Europe and America after the First World War. Yet Hitler took Germany from the ashes and rose her up and made her the greatest fighting machine of the twentieth century, brothers and sisters, and even though Europe and America had deciphered the code that Hitler was using to speak to his chiefs of staff, they still had trouble defeating Hitler even after knowing his plans in advance. Now I'm not proud of Hitler's evil toward Jewish people, but that's a matter of record. He rose Germany up from nothing. Well, in a sense you could say there is a similarity in that we are rising our people up from nothing, but don't compare me with your wicked killers."

=====

But I don't know of any organization censured by the Senate beside MoveOn.

[ShaneGR]

13. It's not censure, it's just a "sense of the Senate" motion.. there are hundreds and sometimes....

thousands a year. It's nothing unusual.

[Eric J in MN]

14. Are any others against an organization? NT

NT

[JackRiddler]

21. This says nothing about content...

There may be hundreds of "Sense of the Senate" motions a year, just as hundreds or thousands of laws are passed. The question: How often does the Senate specifically condemn a political statement by a U.S. citizen or group? The Farrakhan and research paper examples were given. However, these were clearly exceptional cases due to the extraordinary statements (whatever one thinks of them, they were extraordinary in the sense of unpredictable).

In present context - the Iraq war upheld by the very people voted in to stop it, even as it goes downhill and open threats against Iran are lodged daily - a resolution essentially telling a peace group described by the wording as "liberal" (!) to shut up and not criticize a general who has spoken out politically (with obvious lies to extend the war), because he has such a sterling record of serving his nation and took a sacred oath, amounts to an open profession of fascism.

(Don't get me wrong, I think "BetrayUs" was a childish way of doing it too.)

Now you can be naive about this if you wish, but: The Senators may be in denial about this, but their vote also makes clear how they will line up on the question of direct repression, should the crunch come with a hit on Iran, domestic chaos or a felt need to suppress the antiwar movement.

[Jed Dilligan]

23. Thanks for the very good analysis

The word "liberal" in the statement is particularly ominous. It's not a very effective law, but it is still a legal document that specifically targets liberalism.

It seems to me that most of these resolutions (see Will Pitt's thread) are celebratory. The use of a traditional, innocuous Senatorial time waster as a political cudgel against private citizens is not something to be shrugged off.

[radfringe]

20. duct tape over our mouths

the implications of the resolution is more far-reaching than just a condemnation of 1 ad

it's one thing for individual congress critters to issue a statement from their offices expressing their opinion - it's quite another when it is a congressional resolution - teeth or no teeth behind it, it's the first step to slapping duct tape on our mouths

whether it was a move-on.org ad or a swiftboat attack - these organizations are independent groups expressing their views. The next step would be to legislate what opinions we may or may not have.

it's more than just a question of the 'appropriateness' of move-on's ad, it's a question of our rights to free speech and expression. We've lost our right of habeas corpus, our right to privacy and now our right to free speech is being silenced. we have the so-called free-speech zones set up far enough away from a venue to ensure speech is not heard. we have screeners checking people for t-shirts and signs before entering a political venue. so-called townhall meetings are scripted and tightly controled to ensure the audience is "friendly".

given the passage of this resolution, the goose-stepping herd of elephants, and the general lack of balls by democrats over the past months/years - I'm joining the TTBO (Throw The Bums Out) - no incumbent will get my vote in a primary nor general election. (this assumes my vote will be counted)

[Jed Dilligan]

24. I'm leaning in your direction, though my incumbents include

Barbara Boxer. She'll have my vote on this basis alone.

[radfringe]

27. mine are Specter, Casey, andin the house-Carney

casey & carney are dems but you wouldn't know it based on their voting...

[Xenotime]

22. So what does this mean?

Are their feedomes gone?