• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    That’s still not free speech tho.

    But in any case, why does it matter?

    Is Bibi a US citizen?

    • S_204@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      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…

      • Zyrxil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • S_204@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

          • Zyrxil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

            • S_204@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

              • Zyrxil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                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.