« Lawyers in the Movies | Main | Is a Law Blogger a Journalist? »

You Can't Fight City Hall, but You Can Fight Congress

They say that you can't find city hall. But Rush Limbaugh, apparently, has enough influence to fight another political body -- Congress -- and come out on top, using the power of talk radio and eBay, not lawyers. As reported in this AP story, back in early October, 41 Democratic Senators wrote to Mark Mays, president of Clear Channel, the parent company of Rush Limbaugh's show, asking him to chastise Limbaugh for comments that he'd made about "phony soldiers" criticizing the war. Limbaugh denied having making this statement, so he turned the tables, posting the letter on eBay for sale as a "priceless memento" of the folly of Senior Majority Leader Harry Reid and 40 other senators, who attempted to "demonize a private citizen by lying about his views." The auction closed today, with a winning bid  by Betty Casey of $2.1 million. The money will go to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.

But could Limbaugh have sued Reid and the Senate, if he'd wanted to? Timothy Zick addresses this issue in this post at Concurring Opinions. Zick comments that Congress does have authority to issue congressional resolutions to condemn the actions of private citizens and/or other countries. But Zick says that Congress is not an ordinary speaker and should self-censor:

But Congress is no ordinary speaker. As no legal restraints apply to its many "symbolic" resolutions, it must determine for itself when and on what matters of foreign affairs it wishes to speak. Congress, in other words, must necessarily self-censor. On the world stage, as in the domestic market for political expression, Congress must be acutely aware of the ramifications of its expression -- for diplomacy and, in the case of the genocide resolution, even military operations. The President and Congress will not always agree on foreign affairs policies or agendas. Setting aside Congress's undoubted ability to speak to matters of substantive foreign policy and war, what if any norms or considerations ought to guide Congress when considering whether to issue symbolic resolutions on controversial matters like Japanese "comfort women" or Armenian genocide? Should it generally hold its collective tongue where the controversy does not concern any direct American interest? When it is particularly important that the United States speak with a "single voice"? When its expression may interfere with ongoing military operations, endanger lives, or result in the breaking of diplomatic ties? Or should Congress, like other speakers, rely upon the marketplace -- including presidential resolutions --to counter any purported ill effects from its expression, and speak boldly even in the face of likely hostile audience reactions?

Thomas Lifson has thoughts at the American Thinker. He writes that actions like Reid's have a chilling effect on speech, potentially even raising First Amendment issues.

In any event, at the end of the day, the legal issues don't matter, at least in this case -- because Limbaugh wound up with the last word.

Posted by Carolyn Elefant on October 19, 2007 at 02:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Comments

Why would you link to something like this American Thinker article without informing your readers of the obvious political bias of the author? And since you linked to it, why not also send us to someone with an opposing viewpoint for balance?

My eyebrows raised when you quoted the author's stance that this letter had a "chilling effect" on first amendment rights. Sure enough, as I read through, it was typical Republican talking point after typical Republican talking point. Putting aside the fact that the resolution was a response to the ridiculous uproar over the MoveOn ad (which, of course, somehow did not have a "chilling effect" on first amendment rights and was not a "fabricated media storm"), his facts are either incorrect (the Soros funding of Media Matters has been debunked so many times; Limbaugh did, in fact call those soldiers who opposed the war "phony," no matter how he tries to spin it) or his opinions would produce tears of laughter if it weren't so sad that people actually thought this way ("The letter is, in fact, an important historical document...").

Of course, since you provide the link to this article without a balancing response, we can assume that you approve of what he says and, therefore, give a glimpse of your own political leanings and evidence that you are not merely an observational blogger. I think it's only fair that you tell your readers what you really think when you link to garbage like this, instead of passing it off as simply someone else's thoughts.

Posted by: Matt | Oct 22, 2007 6:39:03 AM

If you read the post, you will see that I linked to two articles - one by Timothy Zick at Concurring Opinions who says that Congress does indeed have authority to issue whatever statements its wants (irrsepective of First Amendment) - and the other, from American Thinker which suggests that Congress speaking out against a private citizen raises First Amendment questions. Before posting this story, I searched the blogosphere for additional legal commentary on what I perceieved as the legal issue: whether speech by Congress impacted an individual's First Amendment speech, and (secondarily) whether there are liable issues. I searched the blogosphere for commentary on this issue, but I did not find any.
As for my own personal view, I believe that when Congress writes a letter to a private employer - whether Rush Limbaugh's employer or anyone else's - and asks them to impose a censure (whether deserved or not), I find that to be an abuse of power. I don't know or care whether Limbaugh's comments were accurate or not. What troubles me is that Congress used its official power to try to have a radio station that does business before the federal government censure a radio host. I would be offended whether the host is Rush Limbaugh, Imus or Al Franken - in my view, it's not Congress' place to do that.

Posted by: Carolyn Elefant | Oct 22, 2007 9:57:28 AM

Timothy Zick's article is about Congress expressing itself in foreign affairs, i.e. the Armenian genocide; the American Thinker article is a cliched diatribe against Democrats for their resolution against Limbaugh, and against Democrats in general (the web site also has an article claiming that minorities are more than likely inherently less intelligent than whites, which hopefully gives you an idea of the way they think). I fail to see the connection between the two.

A cursory glance through your archives reveals no mention of the MoveOn ad and the discussion of Congress's role in "chilling" first amendment rights while the debate raged a few weeks ago.

Posted by: Matt | Oct 22, 2007 11:56:34 AM

Post a comment