Can Rep Bachmann be censured?

[edhopper]

For saying other members of Congress are anti-American. Does this violate House rules?
If she is still there after Nov. this should be looked into.

[riverwalker]

1. a petition has already been started

http://www.censurebachmann.com/

[Eric J in MN]

2. I think rules about criticizing other House members only apply...

...to speeches on the House floor.

She wasn't on the floor of the House when she was interviewed by Chris Matthews.

[KharmaTrain]

6. They Can Push A "Sense" Resolution

Not quite a censure, but close enough...pushing a resolution condemning her statements and bring it forward in the lame duck session.

Cheers...

[Tangerine LaBamba]

3. I tried to sign that petition, and I found

that I couldn't do it. If I did, I'd be going against everything I believe about the First Amendment and free speech.

While Bachmann's remarks were hateful and stupid, she has a right to be hateful and stupid. Let the voters throw her out, let them decide that she's not who they want to represent them. But I cannot, in any kind of good conscience, put my name to anything that attempts to silence the speech of another person.

Hateful speech deserves the most protection. That is a basic tenet of First Amendment law. It is why America is great.

[chelsea0011]

4. Oh she can talk till she is blue in the face. That doesn't mean she can't be taken

to task for it. Just getting a censure doesn't mean she can't continue spewing her hate.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

7. Taken to task, whatever that means,

is one thing. Censured for exercising her right to free speech when she wasn't on the House floor?

No. That's censorship, and I want no part of it.

What will be your defense when someone doesn't care for something you say?

Let them spew their hate. Let the bright light of freedom shine on them. It's the American way.

[chelsea0011]

9. That's all censure is

[Tangerine LaBamba]

15. Do you know the history of censure?

Do you know what censure is, and how rarely it's been invoked? My goodness, but for a bunch of liberals, some people sure are quick to want to silence and punish. That's unfortunate. The people who are giving money to Bachmann's opponent understand exactly how to fight her hateful speech, and it doesn't involve censorship.

You might want to read up on it before you say something like "That's all censure is," which is kind of meaningless.

Or are you in favor of censoring speech? Because, if you are, I want nothing to do with it.

[crystalwolf]

5. The problem is not free speech...

But slander, and trying to silence someone else because of their "left,liberal views" according to her.
Yes she can talk, "I take exception to what ________ says, but to slander, someone's good name is now free speech. It seems we are going back to the McCarthy days, but instead of "communist" its "terrorist" People like here are pushing this country backwards not forward.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

8. She slandered no one

That's a hard charge to make stick, and I don't recall her "naming names" and making specific accusations against private citizens. If she'd said anything about her fellow Representatives, that would also be a hard charge to make, a slander allegation.

She was just spewing her mindless hate, prompted, no doubt, by a page of talking points she'd been given by the McCain campaign. She did her job as a good little soldier. Now, let her constituents take her to task and silence her via the ballot box.

By the way, welcome to DU, crystalwolf.

[Lyric]

12. She named names.

The politicians she talked about are unlikely to be victims of slander, because they are all public officials. But Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers are not. She called them both anti-American extremist Leftists. I don't know enough details about either of those two to know if what she said is true, but from a legal standpoint, private citizens being called out by a U.S. House Rep on national television would probably have fantastic standing to bring a slander case against her if she's wrong.

Not to mention the fact that a U.S. House Rep publicly villifying private citizens, by name, on national television is INCREDIBLY unethical. That's exactly what a censure is for--to deal with unethical actions committed by Congress members. There's nothing about a censure that silences her speech.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

16. I'd argue that Rezko and Ayers aren't private citizens

any more, and, in case you haven't noticed, far worse has been said about them. You can't just cry "slander!" when someone says something you don't like.

And if you don't know if what she said is true, what's your beef?

Do you think Joe the Plumber has a case against John McCain because he violated his right to privacy, and claimed he was a plumber, when, in fact, he's not?

Unethical? Expressing her opinion, no matter how hateful, is not unethical. She's a jerk and probably quite stupid, but she's allowed to speak her mind, just like any other citizen, when they're her opinions.

I think you should read up on the censure procedure in the House and Senate. I think you'll learn quite a lot.

[Lyric]

17. I didn't have a "beef" in that post. I was simply pointing out a mistake in your post.

You said, "That's a hard charge to make stick, and I don't recall her "naming names" and making specific accusations against private citizens."

She *did* name private citizens--Ayers and Rezko. There's a better argument to be made for Ayers as a potential public figure than Rezko (as Ayers *did* intentionally seek fame and/or notoriety at one point in his life,) but that doesn't mean he *is* one--it just means that there's an argument to be made for it. Rezko's only real notoriety wasn't intentionally sought. Either way, the argument as to whether they are public figures or not is only marginally important because Bachmann made her statements with "actual malice" when she exhibited obvious disregard for whether or not her statements were true. So long as actual malice exists, even a public figure can sue for slander.

Now, since you expressed interest in my "beef," I'll gladly share it with you here.

Accusing someone of being "Anti-American" in the McCarthy-esque context she used is patently damaging, and could easily affect the employment and livelihood of everyone she named. Unlike the case that Falwell brought against Flynt, what *she* said is not so ridiculous as to be wholly unbelievable--at least not to the average person. And she said it without the slightest concern for whether or not there was even a hint of truth to her vicious lies.

Censuring for unethical conduct is perfectly acceptable. Since these Representatives work for us, we are well within our rights to expect them to behave in a dignified manner. What she did was an utter disgrace to both herself and to her position, and it has the potential to be damaging to the nation she swore to serve faithfully when she took office. This isn't some small personal matter she was commenting on. She's blatantly attempting to publicly sabotage an election by disseminating lies, and defaming Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Rezko, Wright, and Ayers in the process. Unless you believe that she didn't really mean to be malicious, or that there might be some truth to what she said, it's difficult to call it anything *but* defamation--and although you can defame to your heart's content, you can't do it without consequences.

She can say what she wishes as a private citizen, but she drew NO distinctions--she allowed herself to go on the show AS Representative Bachmann (R), and proceeded to use her position of power on national television to slander six people without ANY regard for whether or not her accusations were true. She broke the law, and she deserves to be censured at the very least.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

18. Rezko and Ayers aren't "private citizens"

Everything you say after that fails.

Gets your facts right before you dispute another's opinion.

While you're reading up on Congressional censure, you might want to dip into the McCarthy period. It was quite a time.

[Lyric]

10. I disagree. There is an enormous difference between hateful speech

as a private citizen, and hateful, inciteful speech from a person in a position of power.

Congressional representatives have a greater degree of accountability for the things that they say. Nobody is saying that she should be silenced utterly, and indeed, a censure would not silence her. But it *would* send the message that she violated the ethical duty that she *chose* to take upon herself when she chose to become a U.S. Congressional Representative. There are higher standards for people who are speaking from positions of power, because their words are heavier, and have much more intense consequences than some average person on the street. Even if what she said doesn't count as "inciteful," it DOES count as inherently unethical, and unbecoming to the dignity of a Congressional Representative. Thus a censure is entirely appropriate, in my opinion.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

14. You're right, there is a larger number

of people hearing the Congresswoman's speech. But, that's no cause of any kind of punitive action. She has every right to speak, no matter how virulently you or I disagree with her.

Her words are just as protected as yours and mine. There is no "higher standard" unless she commits an act worthy of censure. And if you think that's easy to do, well, read the history of censures in the House and Senate, and you'll see that it is something more honored in the breach.

Her speech was her opinion - how do you find "unethical"? That kind of condemnation is the first step on a very, very dangerous road. Let her speak. Let everyone know what she is. Let her constituents take her out.

Free speech is precious, and we must be very careful when we talk about preventing or punishing someone for speech. Our Founding Fathers knew that.

[sattahipdeep]

19. This must be stopped in it’s tracks.

Defaming Michelle Obama 4:35 to 5:10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoSdubULhA8

How can you run when you know?

[wtmusic]

11. Probably not, but she's better ignored anyway. nt

[dhpgetsit]

13. I sure hope she takes a beating in the polls.

And loses!

:kick: