Does Rand Paul Believe in Freedom of Speech and/or Freedom of Association?

I emailed Senator Rand Paul's office about his appearance on Sean Hannity's radio show, and what he said there about anti-goverment speech, but have yet to hear back. Here's the quote in question:  

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.

The second I get an answer, I'll update. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    Holy fuck, it worked!

  • Riggs||

    People power: Not a myth.

  • Jim||

    Now that I know you reward it, though, I'm going to start spamming every thread demanding stories on the horrors of breast-reduction surgery.

    Why isn't Reason covering this!?!?!

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    Why isn't Reason covering the recent discovery I made that having a black man's cock crammed in my asshole really hurts?

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    ...last time I use shortnin' as a lubricant, by the way.

  • PersonalJustice||

    FYI: Shortening doesn't actually make it any smaller.

  • ||

    Murtaugh: I'm gettin' too old for this shit.

  • rather||

    Not only did it work, that paranoid slut sugarfree blamed 'RandyAyn' on me.

    WTF, is the hat tip I didn't earn?

  • Decentralize Everything!!!||

    I'd like to see one of you write something about the anti-circumcision law coming up for a vote in San Francisco. Sounds blatently anti-semitic to me.

  • Eugenick||

    The only way to bring about libertarianism is to discriminate against low-IQ people. That includes discriminations by race, since it's more cost-effective to do it in bulk than to look at each and every individual; and we just don't have the money to do it any differently.

    Libertarians should embrace discrimination and intolerance against non-libertarian creeds, particularly Islam which commands killing atheists.

  • Zeb||

    ?

  • rather||

    He must be Rand's campaign manager ;-)

  • ||

    Yes, and communism always works best without standing armies and government blackouts.

  • Doubleu||

    A local council man walked by a citizen a few minutes ao without saying "hello".... I want to know why Reason didn't cover that story.

    On a side note, Gov Gary Johnson is going to be on The Ed Shultz Show tonight with Al Sharpton.

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    Is Ed Shultz back from his timeout?

  • Doubleu||

    No, Al is filling in for him.

  • Doubleu||

    I see that his tweet about appearing on the Ed Show has disappeared from Gary Johnson's tweets.

  • ||

    "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."

    Just because somebody may be the best politician we've got, that doesn't mean he's the solution to our problems.

    No politician ever will be.

    I don't think Libertopia will come through the ballot box anyway. If it ever comes, it'll be when more people stop voting.

    That's my message to my fellow libertarians when it comes to politicians: Abandon all hope!

    The more people do their patriotic duty--and refrain from voting--the better off we'll be.

  • ||

    When more people stop voting, campaign speeches will all become "if you vote I'll give you a bailout." So, at least they'll be shorter, and won't have to preempt "House."

  • ||

    Thanks for contacting Senator Paul to get clarification on his views as to whether the First Amendment allows people to attend political speeches. I look forward to his reply.

  • Warty||

    Best of all, you can shut the fuck up now.

  • Nipplemancer||

    This

  • Almanian||

    Way to PWNED her, Warty. lulz

  • ||

    Actually I can't, I still have to tell you to go fuck yourself. Go fuck yourself.

  • ||

    You really should shut the fuck up now. But you already knew that.

  • ||

    What I know is that I should take this opportunity to tell you to go fuck yourself. Go fuck yourself.

  • ||

    Aw, baby got it's way and that's still not good enough. Boo-fucking-hoo.

  • Warty||

    You're new at this, aren't you? You need practice.

  • rather||

    Best of all, you can shut the fuck up now

    No way, keep going RandyAyn.
    Government and politicians who seek office need to answer questions about their views. Asking him to toe the lying is what the republicans and democrats already do.

    Do libertarians seek to be them? If not, don't act like 'em

  • ||

    Yes, encourage yourself in your own idiocy. You are as useless as Max/Edward and deserve his fate.

  • Anonypussy™||

    What about us? We are offended.

  • Res Publica Americana||

    Fucking unbelievable. Ayn fucking Rand for President.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Does Rand Paul Believe in Freedom of Speech and/or Freedom of Association?

    Clearly he does...up to a point, but don't go overboard. He supports your right to exclude people from your association (c.f., his comments on the civil rights act), but he doesn't seem to support your right to associate with people whose ideas he finds "scary." Given the quote in context, he is going to have a hard time talking his way out of this. There is very little ambiguity to his "they should be deported or put in prison."

  • ||

    If you think about it Neu the only people he would need to explain this to are liberty nerds like us at H&R. His comments, if made during a presidential debate, wouldn't raise a soundbite in red-blue land.

  • ||

    What was the question? Reading the whole passage in the context it is presented here, it appears he is talking about visitors to the US who have been overseas attending Sheik Ihateusa's sermons and speeches in Bumfuck, Yemen and GoatAss Pakistan.

    If that is the case, then I do agree. We don't need to let those people gain citizenship. Let them go back to where ever they used to call home.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Uh, whoa. I'm OK with deporting non-citizens for various reasons, including association with those who would violently overthrow government (yes, take my libertarian decoder ring now), but imprisonment? That's a no-go. Paul's still far and away better than anyone else in the Senate, but Jesus that's bad.

    I must also take this opportunity to hate on Krugnuts (from whom the story emanates) and his concern trollish "isn't it a shame that there aren't any REAL libertarians in office?" blog post. Maybe there would be if jackasses like Krugman didn't hound out of office every pol who expressed an interest in reducing government, and characterizing them as exterminators of the Beloved Elderly and Poor™.

  • Jim||

    Depends on what they're wanting to violently overthrow the gov't for. If it's some kind of new 1776-type deal, then hell, lets import more of those people!

    If it's a revolution in order to veil the wymens, then thanks, but no thanks, I'll wait for the next bus.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    In this context, it's the whole wimmins gun' git veiled.

  • Tony||

    someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government

    So it's only the violent part you guys have a problem with? Every single gathering of Republicans in this day and age is a speech about overthrowing government. Should we deport anyone who listens to Sharron Angle?

  • ||

    Not necessarily, but I wouldn't want to hang out with them.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Every single gathering of Republicans in this day and age is a speech about overthrowing government.

    Do you even read what you type before you hit post? Or do you have one of those special keyboards with like a dozen commonly used words instead of individual letters?

    REPUBLICANS WARPIG HOMOPHOBE RONPAUL SOMALIA!!

  • Tony||

    I'm just waiting around for the massive level of butthurt/excuses.

  • Almanian||

    Why wait? Give us your butthurt excuses now.

  • Hugh Akston||

    The only thing libertarians love more than liberty is denouncing apostates. If Rand can't spin this one in a positive light (and I can't imagine how he would), I think you're more likely to see anger and disappointment.

    Unlike partisans of a certain team I can think of who think that corporatism/imperialism/torture/unchecked executive power are pure evil unless its their suit in the White House.

  • Almanian||

    You know who else thought that corporatism/imperialism/torture/unchecked executive power were just fine....

  • ||

    Obama?

  • rather||

    Disney?

  • Decentralize Everything!!!||

    Bush

  • Tony||

    Yes unfortunately being effective in the world means accepting some level of impurity and hypocrisy in your life. That also goes for being a grown-up.

    Unlike libertarians, liberals are suspicious of all authority. That's why it's liberals attacking Obama on a daily basis over civil rights, corporatist, and executive power concerns. Of course not as much as we attacked Bush, but it's still better than those who stood behind that guy until he was long gone and was finally, meekly criticized for having large deficits, and nothing else.

    But libertarians in charge wouldn't be able to get rid of corporatism (and hence its strong participation in foreign and domestic policy abuses) because their entire philosophy is dedicated to giving corporations more power. They have almost no detectable skepticism of that kind of authority. "Government = bad, and that's all you need to know" is just not useful no matter what the circumstances.

  • Hugh Akston||

    It's probably not very grown up of me to point out that the only power corporations have is what is protected/enabled by the government.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    "Unlike libertarians, liberals are suspicious of all authority."

    I assume this is Tony trying out his new comedy routine on us before hitting the Canadian comedy circuit.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I lul'd.

  • KPres||

    Wrong. Only libertarians, who would put up a wall between business and state, can stop corporatism. Liberals cave as soon at the the corporation starts talking about the "social justice" inherent in their activity, or the how green they are, or how they support whatever other pet project the liberal happens to be infatuated with. Liberal = Socialist-lite. You're not about protecting people's rights, you're about engineering society. And if a given corporation wants to participate in whatever engineering you happen to be engaged in, you're all for sharing the power with them.

  • Tony||

    who would put up a wall between business and state

    No they wouldn't. That would require big government. You like a free market. How about a free market for congressmen? Regulations are about the confronting of corporate power. Are you for more regulations?

    You're not about protecting people's rights, you're about engineering society.

    We care about both, just like you. It's not like the policy necessary to accomplish your goals wouldn't be social engineering.

  • KPres||

    "No they wouldn't. That would require big government. You like a free market. How about a free market for congressmen? Regulations are about the confronting of corporate power. Are you for more regulations?"

    I refuse to stoop to your level of stupidity.

    "We care about both, just like you. It's not like the policy necessary to accomplish your goals wouldn't be social engineering."

    There are no true Scotsmen!

  • KPres||

    It must have been that robust liberal "suspicion" that let Fannie and Freddie off the hook when it came to the Frank/Dodd Act. I mean, Fannie and Freddie couldn't be corrupt, they were established by the state! They didn't own 60% of MBSs in 2005. They were never leveraged 100-1. What's there to be suspicious of? They're backed by the state! Their kind of lobbying is the good, clean, dare I say...progressive lobbying. The kind we could use more of.

  • Tony||

    KPres your attention to these Democratic fuckups that helped cause the financial crisis serves to ignore the much bigger role that free market ideology (and its Republican champions) and the ensuing corporate command of public policy.

  • KPres||

    You're wrong. None of it happens without the Federal Reserve or the assurance of bailout. There is nothing about mortgage securitization or derivatives by themselves that could reek havoc on that scale without those institutions/policies overriding and infecting incentives in every sector of the financial system.

  • The Immaculate Tony||

    I would find the time to criticize an actual corporate public/private partnership in the form of the Big Three and Fannie/Freddie, but... EVILREPUBLICANCORPSRSOFUCKINSCARY.

  • prolefeed||

    Unlike libertarians, liberals are suspicious of all authority. That's why it's liberals attacking Obama on a daily basis over civil rights, corporatist, and executive power concerns.

    HAHAHA! That's a good one.

    Oh, wait, you actually think liberals -- the ones who elected Obama -- are now criticizing him en masse?

  • Destrudo||

    I'm enjoying this new Bizzaro World story arc for the Tony character. On the surface everything seems to be completely the opposite of what he says purely for comedic effect, but underneath it's really exploring important themes like mental illness.

  • ||

    And most of us aren't for "violent overthrow of our government," more of a peaceful dissolution of it. But the Trouser has a point, sort of. I don't think France would take too kindly to me if I travelled there on a visa and then called for the violent overthrow of the French government.

  • Jim||

    So we should base our expectations of behavior on those of nations whom we claim to despise? I don't think Saudi Arabia would take too kindly to you going around preaching christianity, but that doesn't mean it should be outlawed here.

  • prolefeed||

    And most of us aren't for "violent overthrow of our government," more of a peaceful dissolution of it.

    This was tried in the 1860s. Then the federal government violently overthrew the governments of the states that had seceded.

    I don't have a problem with a 1776-type overthrow of an overpowerful gummint.

  • KPres||

    I don't have a problem with violence against the violent.

  • CE||

    So it's only the violent part you guys have a problem with?

    Yes. As a wise man once said, when government becomes destructive of those ends [which it was intended for], it is the right of the people to alter, or abolish it.

    Of course, that turned out violent shortly thereafter anyway...

  • Tony||

    Yeah violent revolution is not to be done lightly. Certainly not because you don't get your way in public policy.

  • prolefeed||

    Yeah violent revolution is not to be done lightly. Certainly not because you don't get your way in public policy.

    Depends on what that public policy is. If the public policy was, say, "hang Tony or anyone else if they say shit we don't like", would you still be sanguine about said government policies?

  • KPres||

    It all depends on what kind of government you're agitating for. People who agitate for a MORE authoritarian, MORE fascist, MORE socialist government than the one we have absolutely should face penalties in a free society. The purpose of government is to protect people's rights. You don't get to undermine that. That's the difference between a minarchist and an anarchist. Anarchy always ends in tyranny. The First Amendment shouldn't include the right to undermine the First Amendment. That's suicide for freedom.

  • Jim||

    Don't even open up that can of worms. Pretty soon that argument leads to the "the constitution isn't a suicide pact, so we should suspend all freedoms until the moozlim menace is defeated". Which is the actual position of a frightening number of people I spoke with at a survivalist convention last weekend. Throw the whole bill of rights out, because it isn't a suicide pact!

  • Tony||

    That is the most fascist, authoritarian statement on this thread.

  • KPres||

    So? Any statement in support of government in any way is authoritarian, fascist, whatever, because that is the nature of the beast. It is a violent institution, built on violence and maintained by violence. That's why it has to be limited, though sometimes necessary.

  • Tony||

    Actually it's not the case that all governments are fascist ones. Why would you give the Nazis a pass like that by watering down the word?

    Anyway all you're saying is that the only correct government is the one with the policies you like.

  • Res Publica Americana||

    No fucking shit. That's the idea of having political views, dumbass.

  • l0b0t||

    I would give the NSDAP a pass on being fascist, because they weren't fascist at all, you seem to be conflating Italy with Germany.

  • cynical||

    Oh, so it's only illegal if you're trying to overthrow the government in a bad way.

  • KPres||

    Of course.

  • ||

    "Bad way" = "doing violence/murdering others to get your way".

    So, yes. In that respect, it is illegal.

  • prolefeed||

    The First Amendment shouldn't include the right to undermine the First Amendment.

    And yet, that is what it allows:

    "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

    Sorry, don't see the part where it says that people are prohibited from amending the Constitution to do away with free speech. Or talking about it. Bad idea, but the First Amendment allows all such reprehensible speech, and then hopefully cooler heads will prevail and prevent such infringements of our inalienable rights, such as prohibiting free speech in campaign finance "reform" bills like McCain-Feingold.

  • Almanian||

    Also, what the fuck happened to Jimmy Spencer? He used to be entertaining. Now he's just annoying.

    Someone at SPEED TV - please slap the shit out of him and bring back the old, funny, entertaining Jimmy Spencer!

  • Joshua||

    Yeah, that's awkward. I gotta go way outta my way to interpret that in a freedom favoring manner.

    I can only hope that he was shortening "if somebody is attending speeches about and working towards" into just "attending speeches"

    I'm a big fan of immigration, but I don't mind the idea of deporting foreign guests who are participating in a movement geared towards the violent overthrow of our government. Merely attending a speech though... not enough.

  • Zach||

    Rand Paul just clarified his comments in a radio interview. Its around the 13:50 mark:

    http://www.whas.com/cc-common/....._28691.mp3

  • Jim||

    Not trying to be a dick, but anyway you could give me the gist/jist/jism of what he says? I'm at work and can't access that link.

  • ||

    Shorter Radio Paul:
    1) It's against the law to promote violent overthrow of the government, or president. Not protected speech. Of course he was talking not about the speaker but the attendee so this is misdirection on his part.
    2) Pivots over to methods to investigate potential suspects involving usage of speeches attended as a criteria for issuing warrants. This is a bait-and-switch from saying you're going to use attendance to lock somebody up and feinting over to just using it as an investigative tool.
    3) Talks about this being warning signs of a person being a terrorist. Again, not what he was originally quoted as saying.
    4) Lower standard of deportation for foreigners vs. citizens. There was no mention of this distinction in the original quote: "...if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government..."

    After failing to call him on any of these sleights of hand, the interviewer then says, "You know your problem Senator is that you suck at the sound byte."

    To which he unbelievably replies: "People on internet taking that out of context are obviously my political enemies."

    Nice ad hominem at the end and we're done.

  • Jim||

    Shit, we're taking it out of context, and I hardly think we could be accused of having been his "enemy".

  • l0b0t||

    I am having trouble parsing this claim - "4) Lower standard of deportation for foreigners vs. citizens." Did Paul really advocate this or is this Raggedy Ann's interpretation? Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe citizens can be deported, that's one of the benefits of citizenship.

  • rather||

    Correcting you

  • l0b0t||

    So US citizens can be deported? If so, to where do they get deported? Does the state just pick a random ancestor and send the citizen to that person's country of origin?

  • rather||

    Americans who were born elsewhere can lose their citizenship for crimes, false statements, etc.

  • rather||

  • l0b0t||

    So, US citizens can not be deported but there are certain affirmative actions that a citizen can take that would result in a loss of citizenship.

  • RyanXXX||

    Oh my God he didn't back down at all. First he asserts that advocating violent overthrow of the U.S. Government is illegal (is that true?) and then proceeds to pontificate and completely miss the point about why people are asking him about it.

  • ||

  • RyanXXX||

    Thanks. That's what I thought. I didn't like the tone of Paul's response at all, let alone the content. Very snobbish.

    Unless we get a further clarification, I'm going to be a lot more reserved in my support for him going forward.

  • johnl||

    Just for context, he seems to be talking about "Providing material support to terrorists". Just about everyone (present company excepted) thinks that deportation is a lazy response to that, preferring Gitmo, flying killer robots, and such.

  • Boss Tweed||

    If an exchange student attends a speech where a radical muslim advocates violent overthrow of the U.S. Government, could he be deported even if his only reason for attending was to pick up hot muslim chicks?

  • Jim||

    There's a hot muslim chick who works at my local Lowe's. I'm afraid to talk to her because, I don't know, I guess I think her dad will attack me with a machete or something, and then go after her.

    Also, I'm afraid to talk to her because I have a wife.

  • Jim's wife||

    Go ahead and fuck her honey, I need to wash my hair

  • Jim's wife||

    Take more than five minutes, I need to condition it too :-)

  • Res Publica Americana||

    The woman in front of me in a line at my local grocery store was wearing what was basically a bikini with a translucent, light skirt, and her right breast slipped out of the bra, and she was searching through her purse, so I got to stare for a about 15 seconds!!!!!!!!!!!

  • rather||

    LOL

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement