3 ms·
But the congressman is supposed to uphold the Constitution, which includes free speech. That's what rubs me the wrong way. Because he (apparently, please corr
by dhimes 13y ago
But the congressman is supposed to uphold the Constitution, which includes free speech. That's what rubs me the wrong way. Because he (apparently, please correct me if I am wrong) signed this statement as a member of Congress, and not as a private citizen, it makes a difference.
- cstavish 13y agoHe's not enacting a law to prohibit anyone's speech. He's simply requesting that SXSW use "discretion" in its own speech. Although this isn't the best analogy, it's like a concerned parent writing a letter to a magazine asking them to refrain from publishing borderline obscene content. When TV/radio personalities get their shows cancelled over inappropriate comments, that's not a violation of free speech. In fact, it's an affirmation of free speech--the network doesn't want to tarnish its brand.
- dhimes 13y agoMy point is that to do it as a private citizen is one thing; to do it as a Congressman is quite another. It's all in how he signed his name.