"If Netanyahu comes to address Congress, I would be more than glad to show the ICC the way to the House floor to issue that warrant," said Rep. Mark Pocan.
No one is saying free speech is giving the entire world a soapbox wherever they want .
We’re talking about someone who has been invited by the speaker of the House to speak in front of Congress. This isn’t any random person on a soapbox. This is the speaker of the House of Representatives making an official US government invitation to an ally. Undermining that is absolutely stifling Free speech.
I’m sorry but Free Speech is exactly about anybody, a.k.a. random, persons having a freedom, and there is no mention about “allies” or any other special groups having any more right to it than anybody else exactly because you can’t have one Freedom for some and a different Freedom for others: Free it’s for everybody, otherwise it’s not Free, it’s Controlled.
You claim this is a Free Speech matter and then your entire argument is about speech for some people controlled by an invitation of a specifica person, the very opposite of Free.
As I said, if Congress should be treated as a Free Speech space then ANYBODY has a right to go there and speak (and Netanyahu can join the queue), if only some people are allowed to go there, controlled by an invitation by a specific person, then it’s not Free Speech, it’s about a space with access limited by rules, be it to speak or something else, so it’s about Congressional Rules and your entire “argument” is total bollocks.
You can’t try and bypass the rules by claiming it’s all about Free Speech at the very same time you want it for just this one person just this one time - that’s just complete total hypocrisy.
I’m hardly concerned with who’s the one giving the speech and entirely concerned with the fact the Democratic party is working overtime to stifle Free speech before the American Congress.
It’s absolutely free speech. I’m not saying someone needs to be arrested for violating a Constitution, but the fact that you’re supporting the subversion of free speech in Congress is absolutely ridiculous.
It doesn’t matter whether the invited party is a citizen or not. They are invited by the speaker of the House once that platform is extended, It’s what matters…
You have not explained your reasoning at all on how saying they’re against Netanyahu speaking in front of the House is subversion of free speech and not just those representatives exercising their own freedom of speech. That is exactly what freedom of speech is, the right for everyone in the US to voice their opinions.
In contrast, there is no right to speak in front of the House, especially not for a foreign politician. The Speaker can invite someone to speak, and if anyone physically interferes with the invitee’s speaking or shouts over them, that would be a violation of House procedures, not any infringement on their freedom of speech. They would not have been silenced or punished. They would not have been gagged (physically or otherwise). They would still be able voice their opinions.
Actual examples of speech suppression would be searching and questioning pro-Palestinian journalists at the border, and arrests of peaceful non trespassing protestors.
The reasoning is abundantly clear. The speaker of the House quite literally by definition is in charge of who speaks before the house. Undermining and subverting the invitation of someone to speak before Congress is absolutely limiting free speech before the American public.
That you’re trying to make this a legal argument, proves to me that you understand the problem here. I’m not claiming this is a legal issue. This is a moral issue and the Democrats who constantly claim moral superiority have lost credibility with this action. If they have a problem with what a foreign leader has to say then they should take to the floor with a rebuttal. Well, over half of Americans support this particular Ally. American people have jobs that are entirely independent on the support of this. Ally. Throwing a hissy fit and refusing to allow someone of that stature to speak before Congress is a very sad demonstration of weakness.
Holding people at the border and arresting peaceful protesters are also examples of stifling Free speech. Both can be true regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum. It’s wild to me watching liberals turning into the scaredy cats that they claim. The conservatives are with actions like this. Hardly progressive.
You’re literally claiming things that are not true. Voicing your opinion against a prospective (as in it hasn’t even happened) action by the Speaker of the House is a right afforded to everyone, including representatives. Speaking against something is not perversely somehow suppressing speech. Saying someone is not allowed to speak against something is suppressing of speech.
I’m literally claiming reality. Scuttling an invitation from the speaker of the House is absolutely stifling free speech. I’ve never made the claim. It’s a constitutional violation you’d have to be in absolute moron to interpret my comment that way.
There are many ways to stifle Free speech. I see people making that claim regarding the chance for intifada college campuses. Being an expression of free speech. I’m amused and fascinated by the people claiming that shutting down an encampment that’s calling for in intifada which is unquestionably. A violent action is stifling Free speech. Well they have issues with a politician being invited to speak before Congress.
Got it, giving an opinion that someone should not be invited to speak at a specific location is apparently not an expression of free speech, it’s suppression of free speech. Just like how if someone comes up to you on the street and starts yelling in your face, it’d be suppression of speech for you to ask them to do that somewhere else.
That’s the legal definition. It’s insane that you’re trying to argue that THAT is what’s needed to consider the limiting of speech to be unacceptable. Your bias has clouded your ability to reason. I’m quite sure you’re not making those claims about the campus protests being shut down by the schools.
Campus protests being shut down by schools is absolutely a completely different situation than someone being invited to give a speech. Saying no to someone giving a speech isn’t punishing them.
As you’ve been told multiple times, free speech doesn’t guarantee you a platform wherever or whenever you want. In fact, by your definition of free speech, the entire parliamentary procedure is a violation of free speech. Which is a ridiculous take.
You’re right, it is very different. The campus encampments are calling for intifada. Calling for violence should not be accepted. That is starkly different from an invitation to a foreign Ally being scuttled by people too afraid to hear what someone has to say.
No one is saying free speech is giving the entire world a soapbox wherever they want .
We’re talking about someone who has been invited by the speaker of the House to speak in front of Congress. This isn’t any random person on a soapbox. This is the speaker of the House of Representatives making an official US government invitation to an ally. Undermining that is absolutely stifling Free speech.
I’m sorry but Free Speech is exactly about anybody, a.k.a. random, persons having a freedom, and there is no mention about “allies” or any other special groups having any more right to it than anybody else exactly because you can’t have one Freedom for some and a different Freedom for others: Free it’s for everybody, otherwise it’s not Free, it’s Controlled.
You claim this is a Free Speech matter and then your entire argument is about speech for some people controlled by an invitation of a specifica person, the very opposite of Free.
As I said, if Congress should be treated as a Free Speech space then ANYBODY has a right to go there and speak (and Netanyahu can join the queue), if only some people are allowed to go there, controlled by an invitation by a specific person, then it’s not Free Speech, it’s about a space with access limited by rules, be it to speak or something else, so it’s about Congressional Rules and your entire “argument” is total bollocks.
You can’t try and bypass the rules by claiming it’s all about Free Speech at the very same time you want it for just this one person just this one time - that’s just complete total hypocrisy.
Sure, you’ve convinced me, anyone that the speaker of the house thinks deserves that platform should have it then, ally or not.
That you think limiting the ability of people to speak before Congress, isn’t stifling free speech is beyond absurd.
Why don’t you just give Bibi a nice reach-around, and leave the rest of us out of it?
I’m hardly concerned with who’s the one giving the speech and entirely concerned with the fact the Democratic party is working overtime to stifle Free speech before the American Congress.
That’s still not free speech tho.
But in any case, why does it matter?
Is Bibi a US citizen?
It’s absolutely free speech. I’m not saying someone needs to be arrested for violating a Constitution, but the fact that you’re supporting the subversion of free speech in Congress is absolutely ridiculous.
It doesn’t matter whether the invited party is a citizen or not. They are invited by the speaker of the House once that platform is extended, It’s what matters…
You have not explained your reasoning at all on how saying they’re against Netanyahu speaking in front of the House is subversion of free speech and not just those representatives exercising their own freedom of speech. That is exactly what freedom of speech is, the right for everyone in the US to voice their opinions.
In contrast, there is no right to speak in front of the House, especially not for a foreign politician. The Speaker can invite someone to speak, and if anyone physically interferes with the invitee’s speaking or shouts over them, that would be a violation of House procedures, not any infringement on their freedom of speech. They would not have been silenced or punished. They would not have been gagged (physically or otherwise). They would still be able voice their opinions.
Actual examples of speech suppression would be searching and questioning pro-Palestinian journalists at the border, and arrests of peaceful non trespassing protestors.
The reasoning is abundantly clear. The speaker of the House quite literally by definition is in charge of who speaks before the house. Undermining and subverting the invitation of someone to speak before Congress is absolutely limiting free speech before the American public.
That you’re trying to make this a legal argument, proves to me that you understand the problem here. I’m not claiming this is a legal issue. This is a moral issue and the Democrats who constantly claim moral superiority have lost credibility with this action. If they have a problem with what a foreign leader has to say then they should take to the floor with a rebuttal. Well, over half of Americans support this particular Ally. American people have jobs that are entirely independent on the support of this. Ally. Throwing a hissy fit and refusing to allow someone of that stature to speak before Congress is a very sad demonstration of weakness.
Holding people at the border and arresting peaceful protesters are also examples of stifling Free speech. Both can be true regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum. It’s wild to me watching liberals turning into the scaredy cats that they claim. The conservatives are with actions like this. Hardly progressive.
You’re literally claiming things that are not true. Voicing your opinion against a prospective (as in it hasn’t even happened) action by the Speaker of the House is a right afforded to everyone, including representatives. Speaking against something is not perversely somehow suppressing speech. Saying someone is not allowed to speak against something is suppressing of speech.
I’m literally claiming reality. Scuttling an invitation from the speaker of the House is absolutely stifling free speech. I’ve never made the claim. It’s a constitutional violation you’d have to be in absolute moron to interpret my comment that way.
There are many ways to stifle Free speech. I see people making that claim regarding the chance for intifada college campuses. Being an expression of free speech. I’m amused and fascinated by the people claiming that shutting down an encampment that’s calling for in intifada which is unquestionably. A violent action is stifling Free speech. Well they have issues with a politician being invited to speak before Congress.
Got it, giving an opinion that someone should not be invited to speak at a specific location is apparently not an expression of free speech, it’s suppression of free speech. Just like how if someone comes up to you on the street and starts yelling in your face, it’d be suppression of speech for you to ask them to do that somewhere else.
Free speech means that the government can’t punish you for saying things. That’s it.
That’s the legal definition. It’s insane that you’re trying to argue that THAT is what’s needed to consider the limiting of speech to be unacceptable. Your bias has clouded your ability to reason. I’m quite sure you’re not making those claims about the campus protests being shut down by the schools.
Campus protests being shut down by schools is absolutely a completely different situation than someone being invited to give a speech. Saying no to someone giving a speech isn’t punishing them.
As you’ve been told multiple times, free speech doesn’t guarantee you a platform wherever or whenever you want. In fact, by your definition of free speech, the entire parliamentary procedure is a violation of free speech. Which is a ridiculous take.
You’re right, it is very different. The campus encampments are calling for intifada. Calling for violence should not be accepted. That is starkly different from an invitation to a foreign Ally being scuttled by people too afraid to hear what someone has to say.
Yes, calling for the Palestinian people to rise up against the invading country that is actively genociding them is definitely a bad thing.
I’m being sarcastic, so hopefully that was obvious.