(POL) Gingrich speech about free speech versus terrorism

[SirFozzie]

This is from a speech he gave in New Hampshire. I find it repugnant, and against the principles the nation was founded on. In other words, he's against free speech, unless it's speech he agrees with..

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...0-bbcd5baedd78

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.

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.

[Maple Leafs]

[ Posting redacted ]

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

[ Posting redacted ]

You are on fire this last week.

Foz, I agree - Gingrich is looking to see himself as the "conservative" alternate to Guliani and McCain - apparently, this is one way of doing it. Ben Franklin's famoous line regarding liberty comes to mind here.

[SirFozzie]

The line I was going to use (but decided against using initially) was that Gingrich is hoping that there is a "movement" that would sweep him into the race for the Presidency.

If there is, could we call it a bowel movement, cuz it seems to me the end result would be the same.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Newt continues to move himself further toward becoming my top pick for the nomination ... which virtually assures that he'll shoot himself in the foot with me on some other issue sooner rather than later.

If I had to hazard a guess, I suspect he'll blow it on immigration or defense of marriage. So far he hasn't, but I figure his position will soften on one or the other of those & that'll doom him with me.

[Subby]

So there is this movie called V for Vendetta...

[albionmoonlight]

It's a shame actually. I heard Newt give a speech once on, I think it was President's Day. It was about the history and context of the Linclon/Douglas debates. And it was a facinating speech. He demonstrated a very deep knowledge of and respect for this nation's history and the principles on which it was founded.

I have a feeling that I would agree much more with Newt the person and former history professor than I do with Newt the neocon politician.

So that is a shame. I think that Newt would have something to offer us intellectually if he were not pandering for votes.

[WVUFAN]

Nothing in that article says anything about what specifically needs revised. Wouldn't it be prudent to actually wait and see what he says before judging?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Nothing in that article says anything about what specifically needs revised. Wouldn't it be prudent to actually wait and see what he says before judging?

lol ... silly man

[Subby]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Nothing in that article says anything about what specifically needs revised. Wouldn't it be prudent to actually wait and see what he says before judging?

Well he certainly doesn't want to expand free speech.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Subby

Well he certainly doesn't want to expand free speech.

He wants to be a college president too?

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by from the article

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.

I'm curious by what he means about a different set of rules. I don't see what the United States can do to curtail terrorists using the Internet.

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.

Let me see if I get this right. Free speech on the Internet = BAD. The wealthy exercising their "free speech" by buying politicians = GOOD.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Newt continues to move himself further toward becoming my top pick for the nomination ... which virtually assures that he'll shoot himself in the foot with me on some other issue sooner rather than later.

If I had to hazard a guess, I suspect he'll blow it on immigration or defense of marriage. So far he hasn't, but I figure his position will soften on one or the other of those & that'll doom him with me.

Steven Tyler of Aerosmith said it best.....


"Crazy, Like Howard's neighbor 'cept different but in a far more dangerous way!! Crazy, Jon's so far right he scares the crap outta anyone sane!!" It went something like that I think.

[Warhammer]

I think the wait and see approach is appropriate here. What the article actually says is nothing to be worried about. Heck, I agree with the intent, the question is what are the rules and how are they implemented?

I wish people would get past Newt being a "neo"con because he makes much more sense then the Rove/Bush wing of the party. Wasn't there a poll out there a few months ago where they took a number of politicians, removed their name, party affiliation, and listed their accomplishments and asked who should be the most admired? I seem to recall that Newt won that which took me by surprise, or am I imagining things? I don't remember what the website was or anything like that, so that may have skewed results as well.

EDIT: Heck, once Newt was forced out of the leadership of the House, the Republicans lost their soul.

[st.cronin]

I've never understood the Free Speech absolutists. Free speech is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

[ISiddiqui]

It is one of the better ways to an end of liberty... though some do believe liberty to be a means to an end as well (I'm not one of them as I do view it as an end).

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It is one of the better ways to an end of liberty... though some do believe liberty to be a means to an end as well (I'm not one of them as I do view it as an end).

Boy, that's a loaded statement, philosophically-speaking. I guess we could go on and on about that, from a legal, historical and human nature perspective!

[sterlingice]

I actually found myself agreeing with Newt a bit from time to time lately but this goes back the other direction.

SI

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I actually found myself agreeing with Newt a bit from time to time lately but this goes back the other direction.

SI

Ditto.

[sterlingice]

I saw him on Meet the Press this morning and I like the general thrust of his message. However, as soon as he started talking about curtailing the first amendment, I just had to cringe. That said, at least he is trying to be academically honest about his intentions. He's actually trying to address the argument of freedom versus security rather than just hiding behind a damning "if you're not for us, you're agin' us" attitude"

SI