[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 169 (Thursday, October 11, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6786-S6787]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Freedom of Speech
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this morning the front page of the
Washington Post tells the story about our intelligence agencies
intercepting some communications among the Saudi Government officials.
It appeared they were exchanging information about how to lure a man
named Khashoggi back into Saudi Arabia. Khashoggi is a person who has
been openly critical of the Saudi Arabian leadership. He has published
articles around the world, including in the Washington Post.
We have a video that shows Mr. Khashoggi entering the Saudi consulate
in Istanbul, Turkey. We have no video that shows him exiting that same
building. He has disappeared.
This intelligence data, as well as other information, leads us to
believe he has been assassinated--assassinated because he was critical
of the leadership of the Saudi Arabian kingdom. That is what happens in
a country of authoritarian rule that does not protect the right of
dissent.
We see it over and over in history--strong authoritarian rulers can't
stand dissenters. Many of them are killed, imprisoned, tortured, or run
out of the country. It still happens in China. It still happens in
Russia. It happens, obviously, when it comes to Saudi Arabia, Turkey,
and other countries.
We are different. I hope we are. The reason we are different is
because of 45 words--45 words--that were written over 200 years ago.
They are worth repeating. These are 45 words that have guided our
country and still should guide us today.
I am going to take a minute to read them. It is the First Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States, the First Amendment to our
Bill of Rights, credited to James Madison. Here is what it says:
``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.''
These are 45 words that distinguish us from virtually every other
country in the world, where we expressly guarantee to ourselves and our
posterity freedoms that are fundamental to being an American.
I have heard my friend the senior Senator from Texas come to the
floor repeatedly now to talk about what happened last week during the
Kavanaugh nomination and in the weeks before, during the committee
hearing, and there were people who came to this Capitol because of
their intense personal and political feelings about that nomination and
what it meant to them personally and what they believed it meant to the
country. They brought their emotions to this place, and they did it
because they are guaranteed the right to do it in this Constitution.
Each of us is guaranteed the right to peaceably assemble and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances. The Senator from
Texas has referred to this as ``mob rule.'' I will tell you, if you
believe these 45 words and what the First Amendment in the Bill of
Rights instructs us in terms of this democracy, then it gives these
people--all people in this country--the right to speak, the right to
express their opinion, and the right to petition their government for a
redress of grievances.
Now, of course, that should never--never--condone violence nor the
incitement to violence. That is where we must draw the line.
If you are going to stand and defend this article of the
Constitution, which we have all taken an oath to defend, then you are
going to defend the right of individuals to speak in this country and
say things that are unpopular and maybe even unacceptable to you
personally.
I have found myself in that position, gritting my teeth and thinking
I wish to heck that person wasn't saying what they were saying, but
they have a constitutional right to do so. They don't have a
constitutional right to be violent or to incite to violence.
I might add, I think they cross the line when they go after
politicians'
[[Page S6787]]
family members and others. That clearly crosses the line. I have seen
it happen in my political life, and I am sure all my colleagues can
tell a similar story.
To call this mob rule is to take the actions of a few and to really
use those as a standard to judge everyone. That is fundamentally
unfair. There were people on both sides of the Kavanaugh nomination who
had intense, strong personal feelings and used their constitutional
rights under the Bill of Rights to express that. They did it peaceably.
They did it in a constructive way. As far as I am concerned, they have
a constitutional right to do it.
For those who crossed the line, they need to accept whatever
consequences come their way. For some, it means being arrested and
maybe more, but for those who complied with this article in the Bill of
Rights, I think we all ought to stand up and say, regardless of party,
this is the Constitution both parties swore to uphold.
To say that what happened last week--even in this Chamber and even in
this Gallery here--is really the whole story is ignoring the obvious.
When the Senator from Texas asks about mob rule, my response is to
say three words: ``Lock her up.''
This week in Iowa, the President held a rally. During the course of
that rally, he was critical of the senior Senator from California. As
he was critical of her, the people attending the rally started chanting
``Lock her up. Lock her up,'' referring to my colleague from
California.
I am sure the Senator from Texas heard about this. I hope that when
he heard about it, he realized that an incitement to hold someone
criminally liable for using their office in a legal way really steps
over the line.
Let's be honest about this. In the last 2 years, we have seen a
coarsening of the rhetoric in politics in America. Things are being
said now that have never been said before. Oh, they were said in
private or maybe on some website, but now they are being said openly on
a regular basis.
If someone speaks up at a rally, to have a Presidential candidate
say: Let the crowd take care of that, and I will pay the legal fees of
whoever does it--that happened. It suggests to me a coarsening of our
rhetoric in this political world that we live in that is not conducive
to a civilized and constructive democracy. As the Senator from Texas
suggested, we need to really reward civility, and we need to show it
ourselves in the things we say and do as Members of the U.S. Senate.
No, I don't think it is evidence of mob rule in America. It wasn't a
mob that voted here on the floor of the Senate. One hundred Senators
voted, as the Constitution requires us to do, and we did it in an
orderly, democratic way, regardless of whether you agree with the
outcome. The mob didn't rule; the Constitution ruled, and the
Constitution needs to continue to rule.
There are limits to speech. The courts have talked about this for 200
years. But let us never forget that the first 45 words of the Bill of
Rights guarantees to us the right of free speech, peaceful assembly,
and the right to petition our government for redress of grievances.