• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Freedom of Speech at Work

Mr Manifesto

Illuminator
Joined
Apr 28, 2003
Messages
4,815
Click here (audio file) for an article regarding Corrine Brown's comments being stricken from the record of the House of Representatives.

This is weird for an Aussie to read, because in Australia we have what's known as 'parliamentary privilege'. This means you can pretty much say what you want, and be safe from censure or having your remarks struck from the record. It can still happen, but it happens very, very rarely. In fact, I can't think of a specific instance of it happening.

For those at work who don't want the audio to come through, here's a chunk of the article:

07/16/04: Representative Brown said, "I come from Florida, where you and others participated in what I call the United States coup d'etat. We need to make sure that it doesn't happen again. Over and over again after the election when you stole the election, you came back here and said get over it. No we're not going to get over it and we want verification from the world."

Those comments drew an immediate objection from Republican members of the House. Leaders moved to strike her comments from the record. The House also censured Brown which kept her from talking on the House floor for the rest of the day.

If I were an American, I would be alarmed that a harmless comment like this was removed from the public record. Especially in a country that supposedly has a fierce belief in freedom of speech.
 
In the USA, members of Congress cannot be charged with slander, etc. for anything they say within Congress.

They're also required to publish the proceedings:
Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy

So I don't see how they could legally strike something from the record. Does a silly exaggeration "require secrecy"?

I agree completely with:
Over and over again after the election when you stole the election, you came back here and said get over it. No we're not going to get over it and we want verification from the world.
There were serious questions of misconduct during the 2000 election in Florida. Let's get non-partisans in there, actively making sure we don't have another embarassment.
 
Here's part of the story from Fox News and AP:
The House's presiding officer, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ruled that Brown's words violated a House rule.

"Members should not accuse other members of committing a crime such as, quote, stealing, end quote, an election," Thornberry said.
 
Brown said:
Here's part of the story from Fox News and AP:

That's ludicrous. She made no specific accusations, and certainly no accusations of other house members. Just a general "you" which I took to mean the Republican party in general. In other words, typical overblown political rhetoric. Tell me again how she was accusing a member of a crime?
 
Mr Manifesto said:
This is weird for an Aussie to read, because in Australia we have what's known as 'parliamentary privilege'. This means you can pretty much say what you want, and be safe from censure or having your remarks struck from the record. It can still happen, but it happens very, very rarely. In fact, I can't think of a specific instance of it happening.
Why is it weird? Sounds like you have exactly what we have.

She was being a jerk, and got the heave-ho. So what?

Oh, and Jeb Bush was re-elected overwhelmingly as governo, so the voters of Florida decided he didn't do anything wrong.

Cry me a river, Manifesto.
 
Nasarius said:
Tell me again how she was accusing a member of a crime?
She used the word "stealing."

She should have said "skewing" or "cheating" or "not winning fair and square" or "playing dirty tricks" or "double-talking." She should have talked about "victimizing the voters" or "hoodwinking the public" or "not playing above board." She could have talkade about "denial of voters' constitutional rights" or "outrageous Supreme Court actions."

But "stealing" an election is, according to the Republicans, a crime.

Guess they shouldn't have done it then, eh?

Sorry, couldn't resist that smart aleck remark.
 
Mr Manifesto said:
Click here (audio file) for an article regarding Corrine Brown's comments being stricken from the record of the House of Representatives.

This is weird for an Aussie to read, because in Australia we have what's known as 'parliamentary privilege'. This means you can pretty much say what you want, and be safe from censure or having your remarks struck from the record. It can still happen, but it happens very, very rarely. In fact, I can't think of a specific instance of it happening.

For those at work who don't want the audio to come through, here's a chunk of the article:



If I were an American, I would be alarmed that a harmless comment like this was removed from the public record. Especially in a country that supposedly has a fierce belief in freedom of speech.

Believe it or not, I agree with you.

And seeing as I didn't have much more than this to say in my post, I quoted the entirety of yours to make it look like I had something substantive to say. :D
 
Look, George W. Bush stole that election fair and square. Get over it ....

Charlie (hopefully not twice) Monoxide
 
Re: Re: Freedom of Speech at Work

Nasarius said:



So I don't see how they could legally strike something from the record. Does a silly exaggeration "require secrecy"?


If it is anything like when something is stricken from a legal proceeding the whole thing actually ends up in a transcript, the statement, the argument about striking it and the decision to strike it and on.

In a court of law this means it is not evidence. I have no idea what it really means in a legislative sense. Perhaps it is symbolic...
 
Re: Re: Freedom of Speech at Work

WildCat said:



Oh, and Jeb Bush was re-elected overwhelmingly as governo, so the voters of Florida decided he didn't do anything wrong.

The majority of Americans also think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. The misinformed public can not reinterpret the constitution or the rules on the legislative floor.

Share and Enjoy - Aaron
 

Back
Top Bottom