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
Gingrich raises alarm at event honoring those who stand up for freedom of speech
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by JamieinNH, Nov 28, 2006.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
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 -
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? -
-
-
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 -
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.
Jamie -
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 -
-
The definition of "Freedom of Speech" has constantly been evolving under a liberal activist judiciary.
Why should it not continue to do so? -
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. -
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."
If not then please explain again why you think an Islamic terrorist has an inalienable right to use public communications to signal subordinates...
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.
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. -
Some of you might be interested in this:
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. -
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. -
The pictures I've seen of terrorists weren't little old Italian ladies from Chicago. -
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.
-
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. -
-
Page 1 of 2