Certainly, it is a violation of the spirit of the First Amendment.
No, it isn't. Free speech means protection from the force of law. It does not mean, and CANNOT mean, protection from criticism. And that's all this resolution is. Whether or not you agree with it, it's
just criticism, and criticism of speech is not and has never been a violation of the spirit of the first ammendment. It's a necessary component.
My problem is that Congress as a whole is wasting our time to issue declarations condemning people for exercising their rights.
So what? Congress wastes time all the time, why is this any different? And you can exercise your rights all you want to, but having a right to do something does not shield you from criticism for doing it. That's part of the whole bloody point: people have the right to do things they shouldn't do. So how do we cope with people having the ability to do things they shouldn't do? Well, one way would be to take away the right to do things you shouldn't do, but that's a solution we like, I think you'll agree. Another is to try to use persuasion, which includes criticism, and accept that it won't work all the time. Buty we cannot function without
some corrective mechanism, whether that mechanism has the force of law or not. Having the ability to criticise people for doing something they have the right to do is critical to how our society operates. And the ability to criticise means that we also have to allow criticism whether or not it's warranted, just like we have to let people do some things even if they shouldn't do them.
It carries the implication that they would like to ban speech, even though they can't in this case.
No, it really doesn't. Haven't you heard the quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? An expression of disapproval need have no connection whatsoever with a desire to ban that speech. Surely you don't feel that way yourself, do you? Haven't you come across speech you disagree with vehemently without actually wanting to use the force of law to prevent it?
My main problem is, who do these people think they are? Congress does NOT have any rights. It has no right to free speech, certainly.
Oh, but it does have rights, even if those aren't the same as yours and mine. And unless there is a
restriction on its ability to say something (which clearly isn't the case here), then it most certainly does have the right to say it.
