OPINION:
In “Tucker Carlson and the freedom of speech” (Web, Dec. 17), Andrew Napolitano attempts to invent a heretofore-unknown constitutional doctrine. It would prevent Congress from criticizing the antisemitism of his “friend and colleague” Tucker Carlson and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. But the argument is legally absurd, logically flawed and ultimately dangerous.
Mr. Napolitano objects to a proposed non-binding U.S. Senate resolution that “condemns” Mr. Carlson’s antisemitic rhetoric. The resolution doesn’t regulate, limit, punish or censor anything Messrs. Carlson or Fuentes have said or might say.
In Mr Napolitano’s imagined doctrine, legislators who pass a non-binding resolution rejecting Mr. Carlson’s rants would be committing a free speech violation by “chilling the free speech” of Messrs. Carlson and Fuentes. Mr. Napolitano doesn’t explain how the proposed resolution “chills” anyone’s speech.
This isn’t merely absurd; it’s downright dangerous. Mr. Napolitano claims that no matter how offensive a private citizen’s language, the Constitution prohibits legislators from expressing disagreement through a recorded vote. He acknowledges that the Constitution’s speech or debate clause protects every legislator’s speech and debate rights from external consequence.
He would nullify that legislative cornerstone by declaring that this doesn’t apply to a vote in Congress because each chamber is a “government” with no free speech rights. He ignores the obvious: that a resolution can pass only by receiving votes from a majority of members, and each vote is 100% protected by the speech or debate clause.
Mr. Napolitano believes he can use his fallacious legerdemain to eliminate the right of every national legislator to vote on any resolution that comments on opinions of other people. Far from protecting free speech, his doctrine would kill it in the nation’s legislature.
MARK RUTZICK
Reston, Virginia
Please read our comment policy before commenting.