House Republicans block vote to condemn racist group

[Nederland]

For all you folks that are claiming that the Senate has no right to condemn a private organization's opinions, beliefs, or actions, tell me, how did you feel about this little stunt:

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

<snip>
The Republican majority in the US House of Representatives is using parliamentary maneuvers to prevent a vote on a resolution condemning the white supremacist views of the Council of Conservative Citizens. Several Republican congressional leaders have had close ties with the organization, including Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi.

The CCC is the successor organization to the White Citizens Councils, which served as the upper-class counterpart of the Ku Klux Klan, directing KKK violence against blacks and civil rights organizers during the 1950s and 1960s. The top leaders of the CCC all have their origins in the White Citizens Councils and the CCC's print and web publications advocate a racist and segregationist viewpoint.

...

This resolution, which required a two-thirds majority to win approval under House rules, was brought to a vote March 23. It failed to pass, with 252 votes in favor and 154 against. Most Democrats opposed the bill, demanding the right to vote on the original resolution condemning the Council of Conservative Citizens by name.

<snip>

Well? Back when this happened, did you stand up in outrage over the fact that Congress was infringing on the free speech of racist pigs? Yeah, didn't think so. There is a huge difference between saying you think what a person said is wrong and saying a person doesn't have the right to say it. Learn the difference people.

[BOSSHOG]

1. I would certainly hope so. You don't expect them to condemn themselves?

[Nederland]

2. Nice :) (nt)

[sinkingfeeling]

3. I'm sorry but I don't believe the Congress has any right to 'condemn' any

organizations for what they SAY or PRINT. They most certainly have a right to condemn their actions;
i.e., fire-bombing black churches, lynchings, cross burnings, etc. That's why I support the ACLU.

[Nederland]

4. Well...

...at least you are consistent. Personally, I have no problem in principle with the Senate condemning what people say or print. They have freedom of speech too.

[Milo_Bloom]

5. It isn't their place...

The government, as an entity, shouldn't be taking an official position on ANY speech, as it could have a chilling effect on all free speech and the entire rights of the press and free speech are designed to avoid exactly that.

Anyways... I love it when white supremecists groups speak up... it makes them look like idiots.

[Nederland]

8. A Chilling Effect?

Has this amendment had a "chilling effect" on MoveOn? No. If anything it has emboldened them to say more and helped them raise more money. There is nothing "chilling" about it.

[Milo_Bloom]

10. Its not about moveon...

It is about the next group or individual who may not want to be publicaly condemned by the government for exercising their constitutional rights.

The concept is that people should not have to be afraid of a government condemnation (whether legal or symbolic) for exercising their government given rights.

That's why the government should NEVER excercise in this idiotic non laws.

[Nederland]

12. I guess we just disagree

I believe that if you are afraid of a little condemnation for expressing your views you probably don't really believe what you are saying anyway. If you really believe something, you won't be afraid of what people think of you when you express it.

[onenote]

6. individual members condemning what people say or print is one thing

But expressing the sense of a legislative body, not a group of individuals, in condemnation of a particular viewpoint gets way too close to the line (and, indeed, crosses it imo) in terms of the government attempting to chill speech.

[Nederland]

7. A legislative body is a group of individuals (nt)

[onenote]

11. not really

Not that he deserves it, but I would defend Cornyn's right to say that MoveOn shouldn't be allowed to run its ad. But by voting to express the view that the ad shouldn't have been run, he's doing more than engaging in free speech. He's putting the weight of the government behind his words.

[Nederland]

16. There is no "weight of government" behind the amendment

It is a non-binding resolution.

[onenote]

19. it is still a proclamation by a governmental body, not an individual

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

14. They're an organ of the government

If the Department of Education decided to condemn teaching evolution, or the Department of Energy chose to officially condemn Global Warming studies, would that be protected speech as well? Hey, they're made up of citizens, no?

[Nederland]

15. Yes it would be

I'm not sure why you think they shouldn't be. The Senate has passed a resolution declaring that Global Warming is real, is that violation of the "global warming is hoax" crowd's free speech? No. People and groups can say whatever they want about anything they want to. That's free speech.

[MetalCanuck]

9. They will condem Moveon but not this of course.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

13. If the CCC

Wants to put their words into actions, they should be beaten, fucked, and driven across the land. Until then, they've got as much right to be racist as you've got not to be.

If Theo Van Gogh's murder taught us nothing, it is that bad ideas should be fought by good ideas, not actions to silence them.

[Nederland]

18. Of course

No is debating that. The question is, did the House do wrong when they voted to condemn the CCC? From your post, I'm not sure what you think...

[AtomicKitten]

17. "blocked a vote to condemn ...."

Earth to Democrats in Congress: Please explain why you didn't block their dumbass Move.On condemnation from coming to a vote.

:mad: