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

Discussion in 'Politics' started by JamieinNH, Nov 28, 2006.

  1. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.



    STORY LINK



    So, is this how Gingrich plans to retake Congress? By wanting to limit Freedom of Speech?!? I think we need to start with his and shut him up before it's too late!!



    Jamie
     
  2. Not_hard_to_find

    Not_hard_to_find
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did not realize how much you agreed with Gingrich -- remove my enemy's freedom of speech. Is that not what you just suggested? How did you intend to shut him up? What is 'too late'?
     
  3. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nice try... But I don't agree with him. I was making a "funny" just in case you MISSED it.

    If someone starts to promote limiting FREE SPEECH, then I think we should limit THAT person FIRST.

    Sorry, I don't think we should change, admend, or mess with freedom of speech. Newt has it wrong in his stance...


    Jamie
     
  4. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    What a farce. Liberals have been shouting down their opposition for years. They have worked diligently to prevent religious expression in the public forum. Many are saying they will bring back the "fairness doctrine" that would effectively kill conservative talk radio by forcing stations to offer money losing liberal programs to "balance" their free speech. No one has been willing to listen to liberals on the radio so they know that these stations won't be able to afford to keep broadcasting conservatives if force to have liberals too. It is also liberals who are interested in restricting/policing internet political speech... not of terrorists but of conservatives who expose them.

    And now someone dares say that unrestricted free speech may give terrorists the ability to attack us more effectively and we hear protests?
     
    #4 Scott J, Nov 28, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 28, 2006
  5. Not_hard_to_find

    Not_hard_to_find
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    0
    Missed the 'funny'. But you must have returned to it in your second sentence -- still doesn't sound funny, nor in support of freedom of speech. Why does it bother you so that an individual expresses an opinion that differs from yours?
     
  6. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==I have not seen the speech but is it possible that he was just saying "look folks, this is what we are going to be forced to do"? That is probably his point and, sad to say, he maybe right. As for freedom of speech, our society walked away from that years ago. There are whole groups of people in America who we are not "allowed" to be critical of or to speak bad of.


    ==So you condemn someone who "you think" is opposed to freedom of speech by trying to limit his free speech (ie...shut him up). Like it or not Gingrich may very well be right, we may have to re-examine alot of things here in America in the name of national security.
     
  7. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's ok if you missed it... You must not know me, or at least me from my postings do you would know I am in favor of free speech even if it has a different view from mine.

    Knowing me, or knowing that about me, you would have seen the sarcatism<sp> in my first post.

    I do not agree with Newt in that we should limit free speech in order to "limit" the terrorists way to communicate. They will find a way to get their message out and we will be stuck with yet, even more limited freedoms.

    There has to be a better way to fight them, and beat them without limiting what Americans can and can not say.

    Jamie
     
  8. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't agree with the statement that we might be "forced" to do it by the terroist's hands. If it happens, it will happen at the hands of a politican.

    I also don't agree that our society has walked away from freedom of speech. certain people or places may have, but I have not and I am part of society. I also believe there are more people like myself.


    Read my posts just above this one.. I do believe in freedom of speech and was making a "funny". You like Not_Hard_To_Find must not know me from there forums, or you would know I am for Freedom of Speech, and not against it no matter who is speaking.

    Jamie
     
  9. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where did the Liberal vers Conservative come from? I am neither a Liberal or Conservative. Why do you think it always has to come down to one or the other?

    I don't agree with Newt. I like Freedom of Speech. If we need to fight the terroist's we need to find better ways, without limiting our freedoms.

    By limiting our freedoms, we are letting the terroist change our country, our way of life, and in a way, that is a win for them.

    What ever happened to stand your ground, and fight for what matters the most vers just let people/groups change us and how we live?

    Aren't the men and women in the military fighting so we can keep our freedoms? Or are they only fighting for a select few freedoms?

    Jamie
     
  10. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==Well the fact is our laws (etc) were not set up to deal with the kind of threat we now face. In certain areas there maybe no other way to deal with the threat then to restrict certain types of behavior and to engage in certain types of profiling. Not saying I am in favor of it, I am not, I am just stating a reality as I suppose Newt was as well.


    ==I am refering to society at large.


    ==Sorry about any misunderstanding, but it can be hard to read emotion in black and white text.
     
  11. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,911
    Likes Received:
    295
    The definition of "Freedom of Speech" has constantly been evolving under a liberal activist judiciary.

    Why should it not continue to do so?
     
  12. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Really? Are science teachers who have done their research actually able to teach evolution truthfully to include its flaws?

    Could a HS teacher in say CA along with pro-homosexual indoctrination present health facts concerning homosexuality? Could they at the same time point out that the nuclear family built upon a male and female for life is statistically the best for producing successful children?

    Can you be nice to a retiring old Senator and not have your remarks characterized as "insensitive" so successfully that you are forced to step down as the majority leader of the Senate?

    I don't know what your position in your church is but I got my annual Barry Lind letter this year threatening that if I used my free speech rights from the pulpit that we could face legal action.

    None of the things I listed will are enforced with the intent to prevent terrorist attacks. They were intended to "shut up" people that disagree with a viewpoint being promoted by secularists.

    During WW2, the father of liberalism all but suspended many rights for the sake of security. Many of those rights never quite made it back as "rights" but rather began to be seen as "privileges" that the gov't could withhold... so your concern isn't completely unmerited. However, the use of public airwaves to plan acts of war against the people of the US might not quite qualify for protection in the spirit of the Bill of Rights.
     
  13. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mostly because it is convenient shorthand for identifying a person with the views they typically espouse.

    He wasn't very specific though was he? Do you have a problem violating one's privacy when they are making calls from the US to countries known to be safe havens for terrorists when the person making the call has been under surveillance?

    Do you think that known terrorists should be able to use their websites to send coded attack orders to suicide nuke bombers in Manchester just so you can be satisfied that we didn't violate his rights by blocking site access?

    Did you notice or agree when Newt said this about liberal intrusions on free 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."

    Do you think a student at Univ of NH has the right to call a black student a n---er without repercussions? Do you think whites in general have a right to call blacks by that name... and moreover should be accepted when they use it?

    If not then please explain again why you think an Islamic terrorist has an inalienable right to use public communications to signal subordinates...

    What indeed?

    Whether intended or not, we have our enemy engaged and preoccupied with our well-trained military in Iraq and apparently most Americans are so dissatisfied with that state of things that they voted the Republican majority out of office for it... and hold Bush in very low esteem because of it.

    So there we are with the perfect opportunity to fight and defeat those who want to "change us and how we live" and many are offering encouragement to the enemy by demanding that we retreat.

    Were the soldiers in WW2 when Japanese Americans were put in internment camps? How about when the Great Emancipator himself suspended habeas corpus?

    The answer is 'yes' at least from my point of view... however there are many who seem to be very inconsistent on their pov's. I don't think it is unreasonable to think that we will not be able to allow unrestrained free speech in activities and venues that limit themselves readily to terrorist tactics... any more than we can give unrestrained free speech to pranksters in theaters who might yell "fire" causing someone to be trampled to death.
     
  14. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Some of you might be interested in this:

    http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fara/q_A.htm

    It might behoove us to look at some organizations in the US which could easily fall into this category - obviously this law is not strictly enforced even since 09/11, even though it is on the books.
     
    #14 LadyEagle, Nov 28, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 28, 2006
  15. Not_hard_to_find

    Not_hard_to_find
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you, Scott, for being specific.

    Another example is a comedian who is castigated, not for his anger, but for the use of a word that black people use daily.

    Our speech is limited, our lives are limited. Admit it, live with it or tell us how one works to change it without impinging on other rights.
     
  16. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can someone please explain to me what "right" is violated by profiling and including race as a factor? Does it really make since to "randomly" pat down grandma Clamplitt instead of looking for men who fit the appearance profile of a terrorist?

    The pictures I've seen of terrorists weren't little old Italian ladies from Chicago.
     
  17. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hey, if the terorists were blue haired little old ladies in wheelchairs, no one would be whining about profiling. When a group has an axe to grind and less than honorable objectives, the MO is to cry discrimination.
     
  18. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Live under the libertarian principle that people have the right to associate or not associate according to the dictates of their own conscience.

    The gov't should have never been in the business of social engineering even for the best of causes and should immediately get out of that business.
     
  19. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen to that, they cant even get the mail out on time.
     
  20. Not_hard_to_find

    Not_hard_to_find
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sounds great -- until you consider Proverbs 14:12 and 16:25. Libertarianism does not stop at association.
     

Share This Page

Loading...