Newtie vs. The First Amendment

[Bullypulpit]

Isn't it ironic? Newt Gingrich uses the platform of an award banquet honoring those who defend freedom of speech to attack freedom of speech.

<blockquote>"...we will adopt rules of engagement that we use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us..." - Newt Gingrich</blockquote>

Newtie begs the question though of just who will decide what exercises in free-speech and just what web sites will be considered threats. Judging from recent events, it couls be Quakers, Veterans for Peace, or just about any group or individual that had spooken in opposition to Chimpy and Co's policies in general and the disaster in Iraq in particular.

The fact of the matter is that freedom of speech is a great bulwark against extremist ideologies and terrorism we face today. Theses ideals, when examined in the open marketplace of ideas are quickly discredited and revealed for the spiritual, moral and intellectual frauds they truly are. Ridicule is also an effective means of forcing stupid, dangerous ideas to wither on the vine. So if Newtie, and his right wing-nut fellow travelers, wish to restrict free speech, I can only say "Let them try...", they can't keep up with the technology.

In closing, Newt...Your mother was a hamster and your father reeked of elderberries.

 

[glockmail]

He's probably against them having Second Amendment rights as well. Heck- he probably wants them to have no rights! What a bad man!

 

[theHawk]

Who is 'they' anyway? Since you omitted a complete version of his quote, I'd assume he is referring to foreign terrorists. If so I don't see what the problem is with it.

 

[jillian]

Who is 'they' anyway? Since you omitted a complete version of his quote, I'd assume he is referring to foreign terrorists. If so I don't see what the problem is with it.

I heard his comments. There's nothing in Bully's quote that doesn't accurately represent what was said.

Tell me, though, while they're looking for all these terrorists, how do they get to them without going thru us? Answer: they don't.

But given how you guys wet yourselves with pleasure over the "patriot" act and the NSA spying on y'all, guess a little first amendment infringement doesn't bother you.... goes with infringing on the 4th amendment, right?

Just so long as they don't touch your 2nd amendment, huh?

 

[dilloduck]

Newt's the man---he's already got the bleeding hearts pissed at him. Can't wait to watch him debate the socks of all takers.

 

[Annie]

Plenty of links:

http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/2006/11/spinning_gingri.html

Spinning Gingrich's Speech on the First Amendment

Here's the NY Sun's lead on a recent speech by Newt Gingrich:

A former House speaker, Newt Gingrich, is causing a stir by proposing that free speech may have to be curtailed in order to fight terrorism.
​

Here's the AP's lead:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Monday that First Amendment rights need to be expanded and cited the elimination of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms as one solution.​

In fact, in the speech, Gingrich made both points. (A partial transcript and full audio are available from Newt's website.) In so doing, he's posed exactly the right question.

Here's what Newt said about the war on terror and the First Amendment:

This is a serious long term war, and it will enviably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear of biological weapons.

And, my prediction to you is that ether before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.

This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.​

According to the AP, here's what Newt said about McCain-Feingold:

Gingrich, a Republican, suggested allowing people to give any amount to any candidate as long as the donation is reported online within 24 hours.

"Just as tax lawyers always succeed in out-thinking the (Internal Revenue Service) because they stay after five and the IRS goes home, the private-sector lawyers will always out-think the (Federal Election Commission) because they stay after five and the FEC goes home," Gingrich told about 400 people at the Nackey Scripps Loeb First Amendment Awards Honors dinner.
​

Newt's speech strikes this observer as eminently sensible. Political speech out to be at the core of First Amendment protections. People should be free to say whatever they want about politics and elections and to publicize their views as widely as possible. In today's media economy, that takes money. Restrictions on campaign finance thus are restrictions on the core of free speech rights.

To be sure, there is some risk of money leading to corruption. The late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously opined, however, that “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.” Prompt and complete disclosure of campaign contributions, as Gingrich recommends, strikes the appropriate balance between free speech and fear of corruption.

As for the war on terror, one is reminded of Ben Franklin's dictum that "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." At the same time, however, as late Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson famously remarked, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

There must be a balance. As Russell Kirk wrote, "A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty." Or, as his wife Annette put it, "You can't just have the concept of freedom without order, and that's the first need of all."

In a world in which radical terrorists have access to WMD, we can't let either political correctness or extreme claims of personal freedom to protect terrorists from appropriate surveillance. Accordingly, Gingrich is sensibly calling for a proactive discussion of the basic question: What is the appropriate balance between order and liberty?

 

[glockmail]

....

Just so long as they don't touch your 2nd amendment, huh?

No problem with them touching "my" second Amendment by enforcing current laws and taking guns away from criminals.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Newt's the man---he's already got the bleeding hearts pissed at him. Can't wait to watch him debate the socks of all takers.

Good luck, especially since he couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag.

 

[glockmail]

Good luck, especially since he couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag.

Obviously you've never seen him debate. Or are blind. Or stupid.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Plenty of links:

http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/2006/11/spinning_gingri.html

Violating First Amendment rights of American citizens, thus undermining the Constitution, in order to capture terrorists is ceding a victory to terrorists they could never have hoped to win by their own efforts.

And the willingness of so many to sacrifice the Constitution on the altar of national security is little more than a Pavlovian response to the bell ringing of neocons, theocons and others in this country who see the Constitution, not as a guarrantor of the rights of free people, but an impediment to their desire for power.

We already had sufficient legal methods of tracking and monitoring terrorist operations at home and abroad in the form of FISA, Title III and other legislation, even before the mis-named USA PATRIOT Act.

As for the McCain-Feingold Amendment, money does not equal free speech. Newtie's support of unlimited campaign contributions with no oversight beyond reporting the sum and the donors is argument enough for public financing of political campaigns.

 

[Bonnie]

Newt's the man---he's already got the bleeding hearts pissed at him. Can't wait to watch him debate the socks of all takers.

Me either, assuming he actually runs??

 

[William Joyce]

If Newt had real balls, he'd use his free speech to tell us why we're in a "serious long-term war" with Arabs and Muslims. I'm just not convinced that the contest to see who can plant the wettest one on the collective Jewish ass determines the toughest guy. Primed for power and glory, sure. Destined for publishing contracts, yeah. Launched to the White House and TV spots, definitely.

But honorable? Fuck no.

 

[dilloduck]

Me either, assuming he actually runs??

I'm hearing his name more and he's appearing in all the right places.

 

[Bonnie]

I'm hearing his name more and he's appearing in all the right places.

I just got a happy tingle thinking about his wiping the debate floor with commandant Hitlery

 

[Avatar4321]

Good luck, especially since he couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag.

He's already outdebating you. Heck you cant even address his actual points which is sad because they are pretty simple:

1)End this McCain Fiengold crap thats violating the first amendment
2)Stop the Terrorists from using the first amendment to destroy American cities.

Considering the man also orchastrated the Republican takeover of Congress, got us welfare reform and a balanced budget for the first time in decades, you better believe he can out debate you any day. In fact, he is so far out of your league you dont even realize he has already beaten you. But then being honest tends to beat people who rant about crap anyday.

 

[Avatar4321]

Violating First Amendment rights of American citizens, thus undermining the Constitution, in order to capture terrorists is ceding a victory to terrorists they could never have hoped to win by their own efforts.

And the willingness of so many to sacrifice the Constitution on the altar of national security is little more than a Pavlovian response to the bell ringing of neocons, theocons and others in this country who see the Constitution, not as a guarrantor of the rights of free people, but an impediment to their desire for power.

We already had sufficient legal methods of tracking and monitoring terrorist operations at home and abroad in the form of FISA, Title III and other legislation, even before the mis-named USA PATRIOT Act.

As for the McCain-Feingold Amendment, money does not equal free speech. Newtie's support of unlimited campaign contributions with no oversight beyond reporting the sum and the donors is argument enough for public financing of political campaigns.

McCain Fiengold does violate free speech. When you tell people they cant criticize an incumbent politician its a violation of free speech.

As for taking first amendment rights of Americans, no one has suggested it. The fact that you have to set up a straw man shows how pathetic your position really is.

 

[Avatar4321]

If Newt had real balls, he'd use his free speech to tell us why we're in a "serious long-term war" with Arabs and Muslims. I'm just not convinced that the contest to see who can plant the wettest one on the collective Jewish ass determines the toughest guy. Primed for power and glory, sure. Destined for publishing contracts, yeah. Launched to the White House and TV spots, definitely.

But honorable? Fuck no.

if you dont know that, your just freaking stupid.

 

[flaja]

Isn't it ironic? Newt Gingrich uses the platform of an award banquet honoring those who defend freedom of speech to attack freedom of speech.

<blockquote>"...we will adopt rules of engagement that we use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us..." - Newt Gingrich</blockquote>

Newtie begs the question though of just who will decide what exercises in free-speech and just what web sites will be considered threats. Judging from recent events, it couls be Quakers, Veterans for Peace, or just about any group or individual that had spooken in opposition to Chimpy and Co's policies in general and the disaster in Iraq in particular.

And the right-wing nut jobs on this board wonder why I don’t support GWB’s policy of using torture against terror suspects. Like I said in the torture thread, letting the government attack and abuse its enemies without regard to legal due process, and you could easily find yourself classified as an enemy of the government and thus subject to the same government behavior you claim you find acceptable.

The fact of the matter is that freedom of speech is a great bulwark against extremist ideologies and terrorism we face today. Theses ideals, when examined in the open marketplace of ideas are quickly discredited and revealed for the spiritual, moral and intellectual frauds they truly are.

Except maybe on certain internet message boards.

 

[flaja]

Violating First Amendment rights of American citizens, thus undermining the Constitution, in order to capture terrorists is ceding a victory to terrorists they could never have hoped to win by their own efforts.

Bullseye. If we cannot defeat the terrorists without sinking to their level, we have lost the war against them. Burke said that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. A 21st century corollary of this is that evil will triumph when good men cannot identify it when they see it.

 

[flaja]

If Newt had real balls, he'd use his free speech to tell us why we're in a "serious long-term war" with Arabs and Muslims. I'm just not convinced that the contest to see who can plant the wettest one on the collective Jewish ass determines the toughest guy. Primed for power and glory, sure. Destined for publishing contracts, yeah. Launched to the White House and TV spots, definitely.

But honorable? Fuck no.

Yet another bigot, this time one whose vocabulary no doubt is directly proportional to his intelligence.