Newt and Free Speech

Status
Not open for further replies.

ravencon

Member
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
670
If he's willing to trash the 1rst Amendment can the 2nd be far behind?


Gingrich raises alarm at event honoring those who stand up for freedom of speech

By RILEY YATES
Union Leader Staff
11 hours, 49 minutes ago

MANCHESTER – Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich yesterday said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.
Newt Gingrich

GINGRICH

Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a "different set of rules" may be needed to reduce terrorists' ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message.

"We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade," said Gingrich, a Republican who helped engineer the GOP's takeover of Congress in 1994.

Gingrich spoke to about 400 state and local power brokers last night at the annual Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment award dinner, which fetes people and organizations that stand up for freedom of speech.

Gingrich sharply criticized campaign finance laws he charged were reducing free speech and doing little to fight attack advertising. He also said court rulings over separation of church and state have hurt citizens' ability to express themselves and their faith.

Last night's event, held at the Radisson Hotel-Center of New Hampshire, honored a Lakes Region newspaper and a former speaker of the House for work in favor of free expression.

The Citizen of Laconia was given the Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment Award, which is named after the longtime President and Publisher of the Union Leader Corporation, owner of New Hampshire's statewide newspaper.

The Citizen scrutinized the Newfound Area School Board beginning last year over a series of e-mail discussions held before public meetings. It also used the right-to-know law to uncover costly decisions by the town of Tilton this year.

Executive Editor John Howe said the decision to pursue the stories led to at least one advertiser canceling its business with the paper.

"We try to practice what we preach, even if it costs us business," Howe said. "And it has and it will in the future.

Also honored was Marshall Cobleigh, former House speaker and a longtime aide to former Gov. Meldrim Thomson.

Cobleigh introduced an amendment to the state Constitution defending free speech. He also helped shepherd the state's 1967 right-to-know law through the Legislature.

Gingrich's speech focused on the First Amendment, but in an interview beforehand, he also hit upon wide-ranging topics.

* Gingrich said America has "failed" in Iraq over the past three years and urged a new approach to winning the conflict. The U.S. needs to engage Syria and Iran and increase investment to train the Iraqi army and a national police force, he said. "How does a defeat for America make us safer?" Gingrich said. "I would look at an entirely new strategy." He added: "We have clearly failed in the last three years to achieve the kind of outcome we want."

* Political parties in Presidential primary states should host events that invite candidates from both parties to discuss issues, said Gingrich, who criticized the sharpness of today's politics.

* Gingrich said voters unhappy with the war, the response to Hurricane Katrina and pork barrel spending were the main drive behind the GOP's rejection at the polls. But he argued Republicans would have retained the Senate and just narrowly lost the House if President Bush had announced the departure of embattled Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld before, instead of after, the election.

* Gingrich said he will not decide whether he is running for President until September 2007.

The event last night was sponsored by the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications. The school was founded in 1999 to promote journalism and other forms of communication.
 
Why not? We've already thrown away the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth to preserve our freedoms and way of life. And the government could save a ton of money quartering soldiers in private homes. Time to go for the Full Monty :fire:
 
This is the entirety of the content of the article that is pertinent to the article's title:

Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a "different set of rules" may be needed to reduce terrorists' ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message.

"We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade,"

Like most MSM reports, it contains insufficient information upon which to make any informed judgements.

It also reeks of "cherry picked quote" syndrome.
 
It doesn't really say what he believes about it one way or the other...

So we better all FREAK OUT and panic.

Ahh... the internet. :) I feel much better now.
 
I think the Republican fat cats have demonstrated over and over again what they really think. Which may have something to do with why they are now the minority in Congress.

If the Republicans don't get a clue they will lose the White House too. If the Democrats get control of Congress and the White House there will be serious problems ahead for gun ownership in the U.S.

From their arrogant posturing, I see little sign that the Republicans have learned anything.
 
I can easily see how first amendment expressions of religious speech can be called into question. I think it is only a matter of time before someone wants to regulate religious speech in an effort to fight terrorism. Just because Newt wants to talk about doesn't mean he wants to infringe first amendment rights. Let's just wait and see what he and other propose before getting hot and lathered. We have plenty of time before flying off the handle.
 
There are no free speech rights when it comes to plotting, organizing and carrying out a crime. Newt is simply stating that our rules up to now have been developed from a different standpoint. We may need different rules to catch those who are plotting crimes.
 
The Union-Leader is hardly a leftist paper, it's pretty conservative, so it'd be unlikely to cherry-pick his words for anything. IMO.
 
It doesn't really say what he believes about it one way or the other...

So we better all FREAK OUT and panic.

Ahh... the internet. I feel much better now.

Is it too late to get on the FREAK OUT and PANIC bandwagon?? Don't tell me I missed it...?
 
By the way, I saw Gingrich last Sunday at the Jacksonville airport. He was talking on the cell phone. What I heard him say while I passed him by was, "The strategy for Republican victory in 08 is going to be modeled after the Contract With America."

Just thought I'd pass that along.

As for what Newt is quoted as saying in this thread, it is this kind of attitude that will keep the Republicans from ever again winning a majority. The people who vote, and who work hard to get out the vote, simply do not want to surrender their rights in order to battle terrorism. If we do that, what in the heck are we fighting for?
 
It's called desensitization. He and others are preparing people to slowly accept what's coming. It's pre-emptive damage control: the more people have been pre-conditioned to accept it, the less likely they are to resist.

Panic? Well, you can, but it won't help. Both parties serve the same cause, and that cause certainly isn't freedom. So prepare to see the First Amendment go the same way as the others, in the name of "fighting terrorism."

Heh, he even included the old fear-mongering: "...before we lose a city..." nonsense. :D Sure, we might someday, but stopping the law-abiding people from saying what they want where they want--which is all their laws will do, and they know it--sure ain't gonna prevent it.
 
Phetro is correct. That's what it's about.

Likewise, I am convinced that we are seeing this same strategy play itself out with regard to our next Republican presidential nominee. "Conservative" icons like Sean Hannity are trying to spread around the notion that someone like Rudolf Giuliani is going to be our nominee, and that in fact this is not so bad. I believe the whole idea here is to get us so scared of this prospect that when they do the old switcharoo and substitute someone who is only slightly less horrendous to the conservative mind, we will all breath a huge sigh of relief and jump at the opportunity to vote for whomever that may be. This way they can guarantee that no real conservative will ever be nominated. The true conservatives will be viewed as unrealistic, even if preferable by the majority.
 
There are no free speech rights when it comes to plotting, organizing and carrying out a crime. Newt is simply stating that our rules up to now have been developed from a different standpoint. We may need different rules to catch those who are plotting crimes.

I may be wrong but I believe that you have your free speech rights under those conditions until, and if, you are convicted. Maybe you'd prefer a system where your rights are taken away if you are assumed to be "plotting, organizing and carrying out a crime"?
 
Gingrich sharply criticized campaign finance laws he charged were reducing free speech and doing little to fight attack advertising. He also said court rulings over separation of church and state have hurt citizens' ability to express themselves and their faith.

Sounds to me like he is advocating getting rid of current restrictions on free speech.

Of course that doesn't fit the leftist/progressive/populist template of the Republicans.

So we see the usual suspects ignoring the only concrete things he said and speculate instead on what he meant by the other statements.
 
Newt was never a defender of peoples rights. He, like the rest of conservatives could care less about anything but obtaining unhindered power. Thank the gods, that they lost some of their leverage this fall. It seems the nation is starting to shift to the left and is becoming very Democrat except for the South. This will mean the Republicans will remain a minority party for awhile except in their Southern stronghold.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/923kemje.asp

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/011106.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/956uymrt.asp
 
Gingrich sharply criticized campaign finance laws he charged were reducing free speech and doing little to fight attack advertising. He also said court rulings over separation of church and state have hurt citizens' ability to express themselves and their faith.
Does this sound like he plans to trash the 1st Amendment?
I can only assume that many of you didn't read the article. Other than this, it really doesn't say anything about Newt's position. As far as this particular quote, I tend to agree with him.


I like the discussion on this site, but sometimes we all act like a bunch of lemmings.
 
No wonder we can't find any decent human beings to run for office. When anyone opens there mouth to start a debate or to discuss a situation, once camp declares them Jesus and the second Hitler. The worst part is that I believe that the people posting on this forum are among our best and brightest and look how quickly any political discussion descends into mudslinging and name calling.

Some of you people may not believe it, but anything that you see reported by any major new outlet is totally suspect. I have been outside the gates of military installations overseas where I have actually seen major news organizations like NBC and ABC, pay people to protest, then take shots of them from tight and narrow angles and claim that thousands were present. Nothing from our media is to be believed, nothing, and that includes news about both the left and the right, it's in the interest of the media to keep us fighting and bickering.
 
"The strategy for Republican victory in 08 is going to be modeled after the Contract With America."
===============================

Mmmmmmm. That would be the Contract ON America... guess they want to do it again. Not really surprised.

lpl/nc
 
once camp declares them Jesus and the second Hitler.

My post wasn't meant to slam anyone. After reading the responses I was shaking my head thinking I read a different article than they did.

What jumped out at me was his calling campaign finance reform an infringement of free speech.

The different set of rules he speaks of are not defined.

Considering he expresses concern over infringement in one area why assume he is going to advocate the loss of freedom in regards to the internet?

Because of peoples presuppositions, they view him through a template and it doesn't matter what he actually says or advocates. Newt= Bad
 
Mmmmmmm. That would be the Contract ON America... guess they want to do it again. Not really surprised.

And that adds to the discussion how?

There is a thread running about whether L&P should even stay open started by a mod. Old timers on this board like you and I shouldn't be using inflammatory rhetoric but setting the standard.
 
He believes that if you don't believe in the war you are an insurgent, and a terrorist. Which would make him anti First admendment.

That is how can I put it delicately.....not true.

Full transcript:

Third, you have what I think is a legitimate insurgency in Connecticut, which needs to be met head on and debated head on, which is people who say this is so hard, it is so frightening, it’s so painful, can’t we come home and hide? And I think if Lamont wins next Tuesday, it will be the beginning of extraordinarily important period in American politics, and in American history. For all of us to have this debate. How dangerous are the terrorists? How dangerous are the dictatorships? And what does America have to do in that kind of a dangerous world?

The quote refers to an insurgency in the Democrat Party of anti war leftists. Not Terrorist insurgents.
 
I read this part as well as the rst of the article:

"Gingrich sharply criticized campaign finance laws he charged were reducing free speech and doing little to fight attack advertising. He also said court rulings over separation of church and state have hurt citizens' ability to express themselves and their faith."

That sounds like support of the First Amendment.

"Last night's event, held at the Radisson Hotel-Center of New Hampshire, honored a Lakes Region newspaper and a former speaker of the House for work in favor of free expression."

That souonds like support of the First Amendment was the reason for the gathering.

Given the amount of failure in remedial reading, this thread is closed.

Art
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top