Skip to comments.
Gingrich defends free speech curbs
MSNBC ^
| 12/16/06
| RILEY YATES
Posted on 12/18/2006 4:31:03 PM PST by DBCJR
MANCHESTER, N.H. - Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich last night defended his call to limit freedom of speech to combat terrorism, comments that last month provoked strident criticism from liberal groups.
Gingrich said the threat of biological or nuclear attack requires America to consider curbs to speech to fight terrorists, if it is to protect the society that makes the First Amendment possible.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: freespeech; gingrich; media; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
Liberal Dems like free speech when it comes to their causes. Michael Moore can severely edit video giving us Fahrenheit 911 during a time of war, and that's OK. But they support "hate crime" legislation against their special interest groups, a violation of the Equal Protection doctrine of our Constitution. Moveon.org can shred truth. CBS manufactures lies, and the evidence to support them, and that's OK. But the Swift Boat Vets create a storm of liberal Dem retribution - forgetting that the liberal Dems found the McCain Feingold soft money loophole to begin with. Newt is upset that we give away all our war and anti-terrorist strategies to the terrorist right through our media, making those strategies ineffective and placing our soldiers in harms way.
1
posted on
12/18/2006 4:31:05 PM PST
by
DBCJR
To: DBCJR
I think we will see more prosecution of offensive speech without ever seeing a list of offensive words but the language of the charges will be coached in uncertain terms so that even precedent won't serve to exculpate or mitigate the speaker.
2
posted on
12/18/2006 4:35:51 PM PST
by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
To: Old Professer; DBCJR
Perhaps that should have been "couched" in case some football goon decides to take a punch at me.
3
posted on
12/18/2006 4:37:32 PM PST
by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
To: DBCJR
Will we still be allowed to call him an idiot in the future ?? I swear I think he's working to elect Hillary.
4
posted on
12/18/2006 4:51:27 PM PST
by
Rumple4
To: Old Professer
I think we will see more prosecution of offensive speech without ever seeing a list of offensive words but the language of the charges will be coached in uncertain terms so that even precedent won't serve to exculpate or mitigate the speaker.(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
Indeed.
Merry Christmas
FMCDH(BITS)
5
posted on
12/18/2006 4:52:38 PM PST
by
nothingnew
(I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
To: Old Professer
My point has to do with the irreverent and inconsistent use of "free speech" by liberal Dems in light of their attacks against Gingrich. Traditionally, free speech has been curbed in war times utilizing a countervailing greater public welfare constitutional argument.
6
posted on
12/18/2006 4:54:01 PM PST
by
DBCJR
(What would you expect?)
To: DBCJR
Gingrich said the threat of biological or nuclear attack requires America to consider curbs to speech to fight terrorists, if it is to protect the society that makes the First Amendment possible. Sounds reasonable to me. Just as the Second Amendment does not guarantee every citizen the right to collect surface-to-air missiles, the First Amendment does not make it okay to commit libel, slander, or perjury, or yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Or to conspire to commit acts of terrorism.
7
posted on
12/18/2006 4:56:35 PM PST
by
AmericanExceptionalist
(Democrats believe in discussing the full spectrum of ideas, all the way from far left to center-left)
To: DBCJR
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin --
8
posted on
12/18/2006 4:58:57 PM PST
by
Izzy Dunne
(Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
To: AmericanExceptionalist
Sounds reasonable to me. Just as the Second Amendment does not guarantee every citizen the right to collect surface-to-air missiles, the First Amendment does not make it okay to commit libel, slander, or perjury, or yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Or to conspire to commit acts of terrorism. Or to attack President Hillary of Obama. The can probably make an equally valid argument if they come to power that this is "reasonable."
To: DBCJR
McCain said something similar about the First Amendment:
"He [Michael Graham] also mentioned my abridgement of First Amendment rights, i.e. talking about campaign finance reform....I know that money corrupts....I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, Id rather have the clean government."
source:
Captain's Quarters Blog
McCain has already made one attempt to curb the Internet, but the FEC (IIRC) shot that down. McCain vowed to try again. Look for more attempts this coming year -- especially in bills passed during the cover of darkness.
10
posted on
12/18/2006 5:05:10 PM PST
by
TomGuy
To: DBCJR
I don't believe limiting free speech should be on the conservative agenda. The Left's efforts to limit free speech are bad enough.
To: Rumple4
About 6 months ago Newt said Hitlery would be the next Pres. I couldn't believe he would say something like that. Just the thought of her in the White House is repulsive.
12
posted on
12/18/2006 5:12:05 PM PST
by
unkus
To: popdonnelly
The point being made here is that liberal Dems are ONLY considerate of free speech when it suits their agenda. It is purely manipulative.
13
posted on
12/18/2006 5:21:24 PM PST
by
DBCJR
(What would you expect?)
To: AmericanExceptionalist; Carry_Okie; calcowgirl
I agree with your exceptions to some extent, however, those exceptions are not what makes America an "exceptional" nation!!! Newt proved himself to me to not be a constitutionalist when he kept backing some of the extreme measures used by GovernMental EnvironMental agencies!!!
Neither EnvironMentalism, nor those agencie are authorized by our constitution, but rather a treaty RATified by voice vote in the Senate about the time I was born. Sadly treaties are the only thing that supercede the supreme law of our land, not Newt Gingrich or anyother turkey politician!!!
I really like your screen name and sincerely hope it means to you that America, it's people and it's constitution are truly exceptional in history, not because we can make these little exceptions to our founding document that lives, but doesn't breath!!!
14
posted on
12/18/2006 5:22:57 PM PST
by
SierraWasp
(Proud "100 percenter," wanting CA & US to stick with winning "core" conservatism 100% of the time!!!)
To: unkus
I had my doubts about him when he teamed with Hilary for their health care reform proposal. Now he gives the left a headline, he gives them a campaign platform.
15
posted on
12/18/2006 5:31:22 PM PST
by
Rumple4
To: Rumple4
I like Newt but sometimes he will say something (like you say) that gives the Dims some advantage. I don't trust Dick Morris anymore.
16
posted on
12/18/2006 5:35:56 PM PST
by
unkus
To: DBCJR
I happened to watch Meet the Press yesterday because it featured Newt. He made essentially the same point but with many buttressing points the Union Leader story ignores.
He argues the ACLU and cohort have no problem with the suppression of free speech in the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold CFR because it suits their purpose. After all, it's only American citizens whose rights are being curtailed. Yet all the usual suspects (here as well as in the ACLU) scream bloody murder when it's suggested the First Amendment isn't a suicide pact that should allow potential terrorists out to kill us more speech rights than American citizens. I'm with Newt all the way on this and much else.
To: AmericanExceptionalist
You're right, but at the same time, by allowing the curbing of some 2nd amendment rights, we've opened ourselves up to the very real possibility of losing ALL of our 2nd amendment rights.
You don't want to get that ball rolling with the 1st amendment, too. This is a classic no-win situation, but IMO, we're better off leaving it alone.
18
posted on
12/18/2006 5:50:57 PM PST
by
VOR78
To: SierraWasp
I keep getting the impression that Republican politicians are coming out of the woodwork to assure that Hillary gets elected.
I hope I'm wrong. See tag line.
19
posted on
12/18/2006 5:53:14 PM PST
by
Carry_Okie
(Duncan Hunter for President)
To: SierraWasp
I keep getting the impression that Republican politicians are coming out of the woodwork to assure that Hillary gets elected.
I hope I'm wrong. See tag line.
20
posted on
12/18/2006 5:56:01 PM PST
by
Carry_Okie
(Duncan Hunter for President)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson