Rand Paul says: Jail People Who Attend ‘Radical Political Speeches’

[Ben]

Rand Paul, Supposed Defender Of Civil Liberties, Calls For Jailing People Who Attend ‘Radical Political Speeches’ (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/31/232182/rand-paul-criminalize-speech/)

By Alex Seitz-Wald (http://thinkprogress.org/author/alex-seitz-wald/) on May 31, 2011 at 8:00 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/RandPaulSpeech.jpg Libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) made headlines last week for single-handedly obstructing the renewal of the Patriot Act, calling the law an unconstitutional infringement on civil liberties (http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/05/26/senate-approves-4-year-extension-patriot-act). His demand to insert a series of amendments to weaken the law nearly allowed it to lapse and put the country at “risk (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110526/pl_yblog_theticket/harry-reid-rand-pauls-patriot-act-showdown-goes-public),” but Paul said it was worth it to prevent the government from continuing to “blatantly ignor[e] the Constitution (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/what-rand-pauls-patriot-act-victory-says-about-the-tea-party/2011/05/26/AGJmlFCH_blog.html).” But when Paul went on Fox News host Sean Hannity’s radio show Friday to discuss his opposition to the national security law, he suggested implementing a far more serious infringement on civil liberties. While discussing profiling at airports, Paul called for the criminalization of speech:
PAUL: I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison.
Paul’s suggestion that people be imprisoned or deported for merely attending a political speech would be a fairly egregious violation on the First Amendment, not to mention due process. What if someone attended a radical speech as a curious bystander? Should they too be thrown in prison? And who defines what is considered so “radical” that it is worth imprisonment?
But Paul’s suggestion is especially appalling coming from someone who fashions himself as a staunch defender of civil liberties. Since coming to Congress, Paul has received praise from libertarians (http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/8168-rand-paul-shows-libertarians-how-to-make-a-difference-in-dc) and liberals (http://my.firedoglake.com/kgosztola/2011/05/24/deafening-liberal-silence-as-the-senate-moves-to-extend-the-patriot-act/) alike for supposedly being consistent on the issue, and he often speaks of civil liberties in speeches and TV appearances.
However, aside from his admirable stance on the Patriot Act, Paul’s record shows he’s hardly the paragon of civil liberties he claims to be, but rather is “indistinguishable (http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=05&year=2010&base_name=is_rand_paul_good_for_civil_li) from the rest of the GOP on national security issues,” noted The American Prospect’s Adam Serwer last year. He’s said he will “always fight” to keep GITMO open (http://www.randpaul2010.com/2009/11/rand-paul-try-convict-and-lock-up-terrorists-in-guantanamo/); has said “[f]oreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution;” and has never taken a strong public stance against torture, staying silent most recently after the killing of Osama bin Laden.
“I believe that America can successfully protect itself against potential terrorists without sacrificing civil liberties,” his website says. Apparently speech is not a civil liberty.

[trish]

Libertarians don't support freedom for everyone, they support the virtue of selfishness. Really, that's the title of Ayn Rand's philosophical treatise, "The Virtue of Selfishness." If it's in Rand Paul's rational self-interest to have you arrested for attending an political rally that opposes his POV, then he'd be all for it. It's Nietzsche for dummies.

[onmyknees]

Rand Paul, Supposed Defender Of Civil Liberties, Calls For Jailing People Who Attend ‘Radical Political Speeches’ (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/31/232182/rand-paul-criminalize-speech/)

By Alex Seitz-Wald (http://thinkprogress.org/author/alex-seitz-wald/) on May 31, 2011 at 8:00 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/RandPaulSpeech.jpg Libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) made headlines last week for single-handedly obstructing the renewal of the Patriot Act, calling the law an unconstitutional infringement on civil liberties (http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/05/26/senate-approves-4-year-extension-patriot-act). His demand to insert a series of amendments to weaken the law nearly allowed it to lapse and put the country at “risk (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110526/pl_yblog_theticket/harry-reid-rand-pauls-patriot-act-showdown-goes-public),” but Paul said it was worth it to prevent the government from continuing to “blatantly ignor[e] the Constitution (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/what-rand-pauls-patriot-act-victory-says-about-the-tea-party/2011/05/26/AGJmlFCH_blog.html).” But when Paul went on Fox News host Sean Hannity’s radio show Friday to discuss his opposition to the national security law, he suggested implementing a far more serious infringement on civil liberties. While discussing profiling at airports, Paul called for the criminalization of speech:

PAUL: I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison.
Paul’s suggestion that people be imprisoned or deported for merely attending a political speech would be a fairly egregious violation on the First Amendment, not to mention due process. What if someone attended a radical speech as a curious bystander? Should they too be thrown in prison? And who defines what is considered so “radical” that it is worth imprisonment?
But Paul’s suggestion is especially appalling coming from someone who fashions himself as a staunch defender of civil liberties. Since coming to Congress, Paul has received praise from libertarians (http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/8168-rand-paul-shows-libertarians-how-to-make-a-difference-in-dc) and liberals (http://my.firedoglake.com/kgosztola/2011/05/24/deafening-liberal-silence-as-the-senate-moves-to-extend-the-patriot-act/) alike for supposedly being consistent on the issue, and he often speaks of civil liberties in speeches and TV appearances.
However, aside from his admirable stance on the Patriot Act, Paul’s record shows he’s hardly the paragon of civil liberties he claims to be, but rather is “indistinguishable (http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=05&year=2010&base_name=is_rand_paul_good_for_civil_li) from the rest of the GOP on national security issues,” noted The American Prospect’s Adam Serwer last year. He’s said he will “always fight” to keep GITMO open (http://www.randpaul2010.com/2009/11/rand-paul-try-convict-and-lock-up-terrorists-in-guantanamo/); has said “[f]oreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution;” and has never taken a strong public stance against torture, staying silent most recently after the killing of Osama bin Laden.
“I believe that America can successfully protect itself against potential terrorists without sacrificing civil liberties,” his website says. Apparently speech is not a civil liberty.


Yes Ben...Hide the women and children, and head to the bomb shelter at once....or get under the desk, tuck your head between your kness and kiss your ass good bye. It's the end of the world as we know it....Rand Paul is a racist according to Think Progress. Sound like a Recurring Theme? LMAO ( Yawn)

We have 26 fucking states suing the Federal Government over the health care mandate, been in a clearly illegal ( and failing) military action ( over 60 days) in Libya with no plan, mission or exit strategy and Kadaffi still firmly in place, and you're quoting Think Progress on Rand Paul's views on the Pat Act? Major fail Ben..Go back to scouring the internet for high school pics of Lady Gaga !

[hippifried]

Libertarians don't support freedom for everyone, they support the virtue of selfishness. Really, that's the title of Ayn Rand's philosophical treatise, "The Virtue of Selfishness." If it's in Rand Paul's rational self-interest to have you arrested for attending an political rally that opposes his POV, then he'd be all for it. It's Nietzsche for dummies.
I think a distintion has to be made between Randian egoists & real libertarians. The followers of Ayn Rand are really nothing more than a cult.

[Ben]

Libertarians don't support freedom for everyone, they support the virtue of selfishness. Really, that's the title of Ayn Rand's philosophical treatise, "The Virtue of Selfishness." If it's in Rand Paul's rational self-interest to have you arrested for attending an political rally that opposes his POV, then he'd be all for it. It's Nietzsche for dummies.

The original term libertarian meant: of the left. (I mean, the left. Like Howard Zinn. And not the likes of Chris Matthews and all those dudes and dolls on MSNBC.
Rachel Maddow is not of the left. Neither is Ed Schultz. Nor is Lawrence O'Donnell.
The left, the proper left, are pretty much excluded from the mainstream press.) But the term libertarian was somehow usurped by the right. And yes it does emphasize selfishness.
Whereas anarcho syndicalism, or democratic socialism, emphasizes care and concern for others. It's, well, human in its ideology. Ya know, we should care about others. Ya know, um, the ideology of the Republican Party -- ha! ha! ha!
Anyway, I thought ol' Rand was like his daddy Ron. But, well, he ain't. :(


(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKx9QTHm9nE)

[Ben]

YouTube - ‪Rand Paul - Arrest, Deport People For Attending 'Radical' Speeches‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq_3Mfj5JKc)

[Ben]

YouTube - ‪What's the Biggest Threat to Free Speech?‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2uJ4_aDWtc)

[Ben]

YouTube - ‪Chomsky on Obama vs. Free Speech‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjNtZnpDGjU)

[trish]

"But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison."____Rand Paul

The First Amendment guarantees the freedom to speak, but apparently not the freedom to listen.

[Yvonne183]

"But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison."____Rand Paul

The First Amendment guarantees the freedom to speak, but apparently not the freedom to listen.

That is a very interesting point you make about the freedom to listen. I never would have thought about that. In a way, it's a kinda scary thought.


But I agree with Rand, we should jail loads of people, maybe then I'd get a seat on the bus.

[Stavros]

But will you be on the bus or in gaol? Suppose you go into central Baltimore one Saturday morning and turn the corner to find a small demonstration outside city hall or wherever these things happen -and get arrested? You were there, and you can't deny it, even if you didn't know the demonstration was being held by protest group making the kind of inflammatory in rhetoric but essentially harmless guff you hear at these things, but then you would say that anyway. Best thing to do is stay at home on Saturdays, or check the press for every notice of a demonstration, meeting, and avoid it. Or you could just deny Mr Paul the opportunity to make this nonsense a matter of law in the first place.

[hippifried]

Okay, I get it now. There's a "proper left". As opposed to an improper left? Is there a proper right also?

Left/right is a false dichotomy. Politics really doesn't work if it's linear. That's why nobody can get a handle on it. Politics is spherical, & nobody's in the same spot on any 2 issues. Using the linear model exclusively allows idiotic loudmouths to claim, with impunity, that they can predict someone's opinion on any topic by their opinion on any one topic. It's total bullshit. There's no such thing as a "proper" political lockstep. That's just expecting people to be sheep.

As for the original topic of the thread, Randy, he sure has become entertaining hasn't he? I'm just curious... Has he gotten specific about exactly who he wants to deport, & to where? It's hard enough to deport a green card alien. A naturalized citizen has to commit a major crime. A natural born citizen can't be deported at all. Just sayin'.

[SkankyTrannyAnna]

Hold on a second. He supports the tea party movement, who are always going on about 'second amendment solutions' aka, armed uprising, so he should go and imprison himself...

[Yvonne183]

But will you be on the bus or in gaol? Suppose you go into central Baltimore one Saturday morning and turn the corner to find a small demonstration outside city hall or wherever these things happen -and get arrested? You were there, and you can't deny it, even if you didn't know the demonstration was being held by protest group making the kind of inflammatory in rhetoric but essentially harmless guff you hear at these things, but then you would say that anyway. Best thing to do is stay at home on Saturdays, or check the press for every notice of a demonstration, meeting, and avoid it. Or you could just deny Mr Paul the opportunity to make this nonsense a matter of law in the first place.


What's a gaol?

Maybe living in a gaol is better than my apartment. Well there might be fewer men wandering the halls of the gaol than there is in my apartment. I might be able to get some sleep in gaol.

[Ben]

YouTube - ‪Thom Hartmann: Senator Rand Paul & his new McCarthy-esque witch hunt‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t17H_s3jYCc)

[Ben]

Okay, I get it now. There's a "proper left". As opposed to an improper left? Is there a proper right also?

Left/right is a false dichotomy. Politics really doesn't work if it's linear. That's why nobody can get a handle on it. Politics is spherical, & nobody's in the same spot on any 2 issues. Using the linear model exclusively allows idiotic loudmouths to claim, with impunity, that they can predict someone's opinion on any topic by their opinion on any one topic. It's total bullshit. There's no such thing as a "proper" political lockstep. That's just expecting people to be sheep.

As for the original topic of the thread, Randy, he sure has become entertaining hasn't he? I'm just curious... Has he gotten specific about exactly who he wants to deport, & to where? It's hard enough to deport a green card alien. A naturalized citizen has to commit a major crime. A natural born citizen can't be deported at all. Just sayin'.

He says: put in prison -- or deported. So, well, I guess he'd flip a coin. Heads: China. Tails: Prison -- ha! ha! ha!

[hippifried]

What's a gaol?

Maybe living in a gaol is better than my apartment. Well there might be fewer men wandering the halls of the gaol than there is in my apartment. I might be able to get some sleep in gaol.
It's Liverpudlian I believe, & from what I've been told, that's an entirely separate language.

[Stavros]

What's a gaol?

Love your mordant sense of humour Yvonne....it is the difference between a place Gaol and the act of imprisonment, ie, to Jail a convicted felon; not Liverpool dialect although its a witty assumption.

Liverpool has its repertoire of words and phrases: the police are called 'bizzies'; someone doing something daft is a 'divvy'; I recall someone giving me directions and pointing in the direction of the highly visible and indeed, famous Cathedral who referred to is as the 'cadoodle'...

[Yvonne183]

The police here are called The Po-Po.

Stavros,, thanks for the clarification, I kinda figured it out after a few hours thinking about it.

At first I thought it was the place where Beckham bends it.