—
1. The “substance of the matter” is not an obscure rule. The substance of the matter is allowing SPEECH. The substance of the matter is the complete silencing of comments on the floor of our Congress on the actions and record of an appointee for Attorney General.
2. This is like a priest coming in for a job interview and someone getting up to say that he has a history of abusing small boys and the Church saying “Hey now, we don’t want to impugn our fellow clergymen, so sit down and shut up.”
3. And these gag-rules, by the way, have their roots in racism. They were used by uncomfortable Southerners who didn’t want to be “impugned” by Abolitionists in Congress.
4. And here’s another by the way. The history of racism and misogyny in this country relies on using “obscure rules.” Ask one of your minority friends about it and see what you learn.
5. Or let’s look at it another way. Let’s take away race and gender. Here is what I hear McConnell, the GOP, and anyone that supports this saying: “I disagree with that speech, so that person doesn’t deserve to speak it.” Doesn’t seem consistent with First Amendment or American values.
You may be right that Jeff Sessions didn’t architect or announce or support policies that discriminated against black people. Or maybe Coretta Scott King and the legion of critics on the other side is right. But both sides of that issue certainly deserve to be HEARD in a Congressional debate on his appointment. That is democracy. Or is your brand of patriotism different?
Supporting this is supporting the opposite of Democracy.
—
—
Photo credit: Getty Images
Did I miss an article on this website criticizing the violence and the intention to silence speech at Berkeley? Or when it happens every day in American universities around the country?
I find the author and GMP disingenuous and hypocritical when they post articles like this.
I disagree with what you say so you can’t say it. Sounds like Berkeley
Whether she speech was censored depends on whether she could have made her point in another way. There are limits on free speech for example you’re not allowed to libel someone. 1. Based in what I’ve read, she wasn’t silence because she spoke about Session’s record. She was silenced because she repeated the opinions of people concerning Session’s character. If she only spoke about his record instead of reading comments about his supposed character, she wouldn’t have been in trouble. 2. At that point, that’s all the person did, right? I’m assuming that your point is that it should spur… Read more »
“Or let’s look at it another way. Let’s take away race and gender. Here is what I hear McConnell, the GOP, and anyone that supports this saying: “I disagree with that speech, so that person doesn’t deserve to speak it.” Doesn’t seem consistent with First Amendment or American values.”
OH NOW YOU GIVE A DAMN ABOUT FREE SPEECH?!
Where the fuck were the condemnations of anti-free speech on this site when people were getting pepper sprayed and beaten with metal poles for saying “the wrong things”?
Fuck your hypocrisy!