The Chilling Of Free Speech

[Lyric]

I've seen a lot of people saying that the vote to "officially" disapprove of the MoveOn.org ad has no effect on our free speech. Those people are wrong.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, including our US Senators. However because they ARE elected officials, their "opinions" carry a lot of weight, and never more so than when they're using the Senatorial soapbox as an avenue to convey them. Now it's true that voting to express their disapproval of an ad doesn't technically infringe upon free speech. MoveOn.org and other organizations are still free to say what they wish. But the question then becomes--WILL they? Will anyone else?

When elected officials start using their Senate votes to approve or disapprove of certain kinds of free speech and expression, it has a chilling effect on speech overall. If a politician expresses disapproval of something during a press conference or an interview, that's fine--it's easy to ascertain that they're just expressing their own opinion. But when they put it up for a vote in the Senate, it becomes something much more ominous. When something is officially condemned by the Senate during a vote, it changes from "I personally disapprove of this" to "The United States Senate officially disapproves of this". It's not difficult to see that the magnitude of significance changes drastically between those two statements.

Our Senate just officially disapproved of a certain type of speech and expression; namely "personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces."

The implications of this are huge. People who try to dismiss this as "Oh, they're just expressing their opinions" are doing a grave disservice to both their fellow citizens (many of whom are young, impressionable, and don't yet have a sense of what free speech is really about) and to the noble notion of free expression in general.

We as citizens have a duty and an obligation to fulfill OUR roles as checks and balances in our government. One of those roles is to do exactly what so many of us are doing here right now--taking a public stance against the chilling of free speech. When our Senators stumble, it's our job to call them on it. I'd feel a lot more secure in my rights if I saw more agreement here on this issue, and less infighting and divisiveness.

When free speech loses, NOBODY wins.

[Beelzebud]

1. The Senate has reduced itself to a debate club. They are now irrelevant.

They let the minority party control the agenda, and they vote with the minority party to condemn on of their biggest contributors.

You'd never see the right-wing do that to its base.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. With due respect, there is no reasoned debate or decent oration anymore

in the chambers. All we get are sound bytes, poor quality rhetoric, and grandstanding. There is no process of deductive logic or argument or fact-finding. In theory, both chambers were supposed to be made of the most qualified, the most educated, the best people to represent all of us.

[Lyric]

4. To me, it's not so much an issue of loyalty.

Although I do see your point there. My biggest concern is the action itself. How many people will read about that and think to themselves "Oh wow...the Senate officially disapproves of saying things like that? Does that make it illegal? Maybe I'd be stay quiet..."

Because most of the people here are so informed and educated about how the government works, we get blinded by that and forget that the majority of our fellow citizens are not. How many people just got the wrong impression that our Senate made it illegal to criticize the military? I know of at least two--I talked to them last night at the gym. They didn't realize that not ALL Senate votes are laws.

It starts small, and seems insignificant, but we ignore it at our own peril.

[tabasco]

2. I don't recognize the USA anymore.

The Bush administration may have been the death of the republic. We shall see.

[mr_hat]

5. Ladies and gentlemen, l'll be brief.

The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules or took a few liberties with our female party guests. We did.

But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few sick, perverted individuals.

If you do,shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system?

And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general?

I put it to you, Greg: Isn't this an indictment of our entire American society?

Well. You can do what you want to us but we won't sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America! Gentlemen!

(Deltas hum the national anthem)

[ChicagoRonin]

6. Seeds of Destruction

One of the truly foolish things about suppressing free speech is that it's like sealing a lid over a pot of boiling water. Folks in power never seem to remember, using history as a guide, that if you gradually take away all legal and peaceful means for people to petition, protest or challenge the established order, they'll eventually turn to illegal and violent means. Yes, for those of us in the general public who wish to speak, there will be a dark ages of suppression, but woe be it to those in power who think they can shut everyone up. The simple fact is numbers - there's always more people out of power than in, and when the greater population as a whole decides they're sick of things, it tends to get messy. Not that I'm looking forward to the above scenario playing out - revolutions tend to be indiscriminate.

[Jed Dilligan]

7. Is this the first time the word "liberal" has been used

in a legal document? That seems very ominous to me.

[Warpy]

8. That's why I'm such a termagant when it comes to language police

Yes, hard fighting sexist words irritate the hell out of me. However, when people use them they're telling me exactly who they are, not who I am.

I am more irritated by people who seek attention and derail discussions by trying to appeal to the powers that be to ban offensive words and sentiments. That includes a conservative Senate that gets pissy about a perfectly legal political advertisement.

That being said, I am utterly against the monopolization of mainstream media by one viewpoint. To me, that's a different issue, entirely.