When did the Senate become the arbiter of free speech, anyway?

[marmar]

Maybe I don't pay enough attention, but how frequently does the Senate vote to condemn something that any organization has said?
:shrug:

Keep on rearranging those deck chairs......

[Nederland]

1. The amendment had nothing to do with free speech

MoveOn's freedom of speech allows it to state it's opinion on a matter.

The Senate's freedom of speech allows it say it doesn't like that opinion.

Freedom goes both ways. It doesn't mean that an organization is free to say whatever it wants without others criticizing it.

Now, given that, I still wish Democrats had voted against the amendment, not because it's an infringement on free speech, but because there was nothing inaccurate in what MoveOn said.

[marmar]

2. But since when is it the Senate's charge to go around condemning organizations' positions?

If that's the case, they ought to be condemning lots of vile organizational positions.

[Nederland]

8. They do it all the time

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/mar1999/ccc-m25.shtml

[WinkyDink]

3. Government officials should NOT be in the business of rebuking ANY CITIZEN'S EXERCISE of FREE SPEECH

Senators are NOT just any OTHER citizens expressing disapproval; they are LAW-MAKERS.

[Nederland]

7. They didn't

The Senate never rebuked anybody's right to free speech, they rebuked what somebody had to say.

Why can't people on this board grasp the difference?

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." --Voltaire

[Beelzebud]

4. You know that, but how many average Americans do?

To a lot of people this was a rebuke of free speech.

[jobycom]

5. Never. When do you think they tried?

One cool thing about the Constitution is that it guarantees free speech even to pompous assholes like US Senators. Therefore, if they wish to waste valuable time expressing their opinion about political nonsense, they can.

Now if they tried to pass a law limiting speech, rather than simply stating their dumb-ass opinion on something someone far greater than them said, then they'd be interfering with free speech. But since I haven't heard of them doing that lately, I won't break out the "dictator" label. Just the Dumb-ass Demagogue Doofuses label.

[BlooInBloo]

6. I'm not convinced the "chilling effect" principle couldn't be applied...

I assume there's some obvious reason why it can't, else somebody would've paid attention to me saying it for the last few days.

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

The term had been in use in the United States for several years by 1965, when William J. Brennan used it in a judicial decision referring to the "chilling effect upon the exercise of First Amendment rights"<1>; the case in question was Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 85 S.Ct. 1493 (1965). That case invalidated a Federal law that required postal patrons receiving "communist political propaganda" to specifically authorize the delivery of each such piece of mail.<2> The phrase was also used as early as 1950, as if it were commonly understood, in a law review article by Harvard Law Professor, Paul A. Freund, in The Supreme Court and Civil Liberties, 4 Vanderbilt Law Review 533, at 539 (1950-1951).

The Lamont case did not center around a law that explicitly outlawed speech; a "chilling effect" can exist even when there is no explicit prohibition of speech in the law at all. In the original decision, the criterion was that the law have a "deterrent effect" on freedom of expression. In general, "chilling effect" is often used in reference to laws or actions that do not explicitly prohibit legitimate speech, but that impose undue burdens.