would it be appropriate to say, I ask my friend from Kentucky, that at the present time under the first amendment the American people are free to participate in their political system and in public affairs pretty much in any way they wish, that their freedom of speech is entirely unlimited? And would it be fair also to say that the thrust of this constitutional amendment is that its sponsors are asking the American people to give the Congress of the United States the right to devise, to knit together a gag which is then to be applied to the American people themselves, not just candidates but to any American who wishes to express his views about a candidate, any organization that wishes to express its views about a candidate, for that matter, any newspaper or television station that wishes to express its view about a candidate; that this constitutional amendment says that what has been entirely free, an entirely free process, we now ask that you allow us to impose whatever we consider to be a reasonable gag upon your exercise of that right?
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of a proposed constitutional amendment on free speech.
Share
More from T. Gorton
I am aware. ARCO, which is well known in Alaska, recently constructed and started a 70 barrel per day Gas-to-Liquids plant in Blaine, Washington, near Bellingham. ARCO did this with its own money and that of Syntroleum. With industry…
this is an amendment that has been widely discussed relating to CAFE standards; that is to say, the fuel efficiency standards of automobiles and small trucks sold in the United States. Now, I want to quote an argument against this proposal…
The Senator from Nevada is entirely correct. If we can only take a quick vote on it with the Senators on the floor now, we would probably succeed. Unfortunately, we have yet to persuade all of our colleagues of this matter. The question…
That was the intent of the Committee. This research is very promising and I thank you for bringing this point to our attention.





