[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.