Senate's condemnation of private citizens for criticizing their government is "chilling"

[DeepModem Mom]

Media Matters for America: "Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
Fri, Sep 21, 2007

....All of this came to a head yesterday, when the United States Senate voted, by a 72-25 margin, to officially condemn private citizens for criticizing their government.

Whether one agreed with the substance of the MoveOn ad or found the wording offensive, there should be something disconcerting about a government body formally condemning private citizens for criticizing the government.

Surely journalists, of all people, should recognize how chilling it is for the Senate to take such action. But I can find not a single journalist who has made that point, or even raised the question of the appropriateness of such a government action in a free society. Nor did most of the news reports about the vote include necessary context. I have not seen a single news report, for example, that told readers how frequently the United States Senate condemns citizens for speech acts critical of the government. I suspect (and hope) it is quite rare. But that context was absent from media coverage of the vote.

To be sure, there have been some journalists who have criticized the vote. Keith Olbermann and Dan Abrams and Joan Walsh, among others, noted the absurdity of the World's Greatest Deliberative Body taking the time to condemn a newspaper ad when there are more serious things going on -- like, say, a war. Others noted the hypocrisy of Republicans voting to condemn the MoveOn ad, but voting against condemnation of their ideological allies who mocked the military service of John Kerry and Max Cleland.

But I find no journalist who has yet spoken out against our elected representatives formally condemning private citizens for criticizing their government....

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709220002?f=h_column

[JeffR]

1. Disagree entirely about "chilling"

If anything, it simply underscores once again that the Senate - sadly, including many Dems - is so far out of touch with reality that if JFK were president, he's announce an ambitious program to search for intelligent life in the chamber.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. I disagree with your disagreement

Today, the Senate censures a large group of private citizens. Tomorrow... what?

I am fully aware that the slippery slope can be a logical fallacy, but I fear that this is only the first pebble on the scree. How long until censure becomes attainder? How long until special condemnation of free speech becomes action to create laws? And with so many Democrats supporting actions like this censure, who the bloody Hell is sitting in Congress who will bother to put a brake on this?

"Chilling" doesn't begin.

[JeffR]

4. Agree entirely, if this nonsense ever edges into lawmaking

but at least as far as it has gone, this simply serves to make the Senate look idiotic, irrelevant and completely obtuse...

[DeepModem Mom]

5. I have to admit that even I, I think even we here, were focused so much...

on the Petraeus issue that we may have missed this aspect of the Senate vote. This piece really hit me when I read it. And where ARE the journalists? As said in the piece, they of all people should be vigilant against this kind of censure.

[Individualist]

7. Ditto! It was a first step in a very dangerous direction and

immediately brought to mind the book "They Thought They Were Free". http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html

[DeepModem Mom]

8. Thanks for the link, notsodumbhillbilly. nt

[riderinthestorm]

24. Not the first step at all.

Remember why MoveOn was formed? Because OUR voices over the election tampering of 2000 were being marginalized. This started way back when our own Dem leadership told us to shut up about election fraud - a "respectable" issue that deserves serious consideration, not the brush-off we received as they labelled us the "looney left".

Furthermore we have been labelled as "fringe" by our Dem leadership for exercising our right to representation when we tried to make our voices heard when we encouraged them to protect our constitution on even more fundamental things like the Patriot Act or Alberto Gonzales as AG....

I believe protesting in the streets has been so lackluster cause the base recognizes, intuitively, that our leadership really just wants us to shup up. Well, now they've told us in no uncertain terms to shut up with this censure vote.

Not a first step at all. Unfortunately just another dangerous step along our path towards fascism.

[Echo In Light]

10. The fascists have MUCH to fear

Never underestimate the servitude and cowardice of such War Pigs.

The 'Powers That Be' realize all too well that We The People are ready to organize for real change, and they'll do whatever they can to protect their privledged positions ... that is, until God kicks their asses for eternity.

[Hosnon]

9. I disagree as well...but for a different reason.

I think it underscores the strength of speech in the face of the federal government.

[Rocky2007]

22. MoveOn and real time $$$$$

It is interesting to note the money flowing into the MoveOn blog. Yesterday and today they have received $1.5 million in donations and is rapidly heading toward $2 million -- may I suggest maybe $3 million by midnight Sunday!!!

America is fired up and is freely spending $'s --- you have to love that!

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. It's not chilling, it's "galvanizing".

Will Pitt was right, "first they ignore you, then they fight you..."

[KG]

2. just more evidence that america is over.

[DeepModem Mom]

6. a.m. kick

[LoZoccolo]

11. Whether or not it is chilling depends entirely on you and I and the rest. n/t

[Fierce]

12. General Petraeus is a member of the government?

Shit, we're in worse trouble than I thought!

[EVDebs]

13. A warning I once got was 'the tall trees get cut first' eom

[truedelphi]

14. Corporate America needs for MOVEON.ORG to be censored

Corporate America needs to put the brakes on net neutrality.

In the next twelve months, net neutrality will come up before the Senate and now that
there is an admissable way to frame the debate: "On the unregulated net, hecklers and worse
critique the brave leaders in the military and their Commander in Chief. An unregulated internet is an UnPatriotic internet. We desperately need regulation of the internet to preserve freedom and the American way of life."

Put inside that context, we will see another vote - this time the results will be more crippling and even more sinister than what happened this week.

[formercia]

15. It shows you what a bunch of corporate lackeys

the majority of Congress are. I wonder what financial incentives there are for members to keep this War going? How many more hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have to die to fatten their stock portfolios?

How many more of our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers have to die for a lie?

[cali]

16. Well, my Senator is not a corporate lackey

He voted against the war, against funding and for the MoveOn Censure.
He's one of members of the Senate who takes very little Corporate funding, and he's not particularly wealthy.

[formercia]

18. You should be proud.

but 75% don't meet my standards.

It just shows you how infiltrated the Democratic Party has become.


Time to throw the bums out.

[BlooInBloo]

17. For fuck's sake - I've been saying this for days....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1867725#1867827

[DeepModem Mom]

20. You did, indeed -- I missed it. Thanks for the link. nt

[HCE SuiGeneris]

23. Sure wish you would put in writing...

:9 :evilgrin:

[Holly_Hobby]

19. Amazing how angry the ruling elite get when the

unwashed masses criticize them, huh?

[Thothmes]

21. Senatorial Condemnation

A Senatorial condemnation is about as useful as a bucket of reheated spit. It carries not legal implications or imparements. It is just political flatulence.

[Cha]

26. Wouldn't it be Chilling if we could

all get together and Condemn the Senate for Condemning us?

Why not?