Newt Gingrich Says Free Speech May Be Forfeit

At a dinner honoring those who stand up for freedom of speech, former House speaker Newt Gingrich issued his opinion that the idea of free speech in the U.S. needs to be re-examined in the interest of fighting terrorism. Gingrich 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. The article has few details of what Gingrich actually said beyond the summary above, and no analysis pointing out how utterly clueless the suggestion is given the Internet's nature and trans-national reach.

Comments

Re:Their America?

[ivan256]

Gingrich holds no elected office.

Hold on a minute

[andytrevino]

As usual, there is more than meets the eye, especially when the original article is from the "Union Leader"..

From a fairly robust article in the Boston Globe I dug up with a quick Google News search for "Gingrich":

MANCHESTER, N.H. --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.

... (later in the article)

Noting the thwarted London terrorist attacks this summer, Gingrich said there should be a Geneva Convention for such actions that makes those people subject to "a totally different set of rules."

From this Globe article (hardly a conservative-friendly paper) it appears Gingrich's "totally different set of rules" has not to do with freedom of speech, but with the Geneva Convention as applied to terrorists, which is a whole 'nother bag of worms in and of itself; however, the question remains as to how the OP managed to spin what seem to be two separate points into one decidedly negative message.

Does anyone have the actual transcript of his speech there so we can figure out who's full of BS and who's not? Think about it -- if the man is even THINKING of running for President in '08, he certainly isn't going to get elected if he runs on a platform of RESTRICTING basic freedom of speech.

Re:Hold on a minute

[scheming daemons]

Nowhere in the Declaration does it state or even imply that the "Creator" is the Judeo-Christian God of the bible.

It is intentionally vague, so as to apply to everyone's concept of who/what the "Creator" is.

For example, for Pagans, the Creator = Mother Nature.... and the Declaration means the same.

Even for an agnostic, "Creator" can mean whatever ends up being true.

It's a catch-all word that doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means. A large percentage of the founders were Deists, and did not follow strict Christian teachings.... though they did believe in the concept of a supreme being, they didn't necessarily believe in the concept as laid out in the Judeo-Christian bible.

Side note... nowhere in the Constitution are the words "God" or "Christ" or any equivalent word used. Nowhere. The Declaration of Independence was a statement of grievances to a tyrant, and basically a "Divorce Decree"... it was (and is) not a governing document. *THE* governing document of the United States is the Constitution, and it specifically does NOT speak of a supreme being or even indirectly imply one.

Not like Europeans...

[jbeaupre]

I honestly hope we don't enact restrictions like Europe (and elsewhere) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-02-26-euro pe-free-speech_x.htm.

"If the Constitution doesn't protect scum like me, it doesn't protect anybody."---Larry Flint.

Newt

[keller95971]

Several points: I have read the transcipt. Newt never said that free speech should be curtailed. Indeed, he said it should be expanded. But what's accuracy between a few friends? It should be pointed that the few attempts at LEGISLATION that would curtail free speech was sponsored by Democrats. It is also worth noting that the PMRC was the brainchild of Tipper Gore and that the panel was packed with Democrats. The two Repulicans on the panel, not any of the Democrats, were the ones who called the opponents of free speech restrictions as witnesses. A lot of folks forget that it was Edwin Meese, the Attorney General at the time and a Republican, wrote a legal opinion opposing the proposed PMRC legislation. He said parents were the bets people to decide whether children should be listening to Frank Zappa or whomever. Next, people like to whine about the suspension of habeas corpus and about warrantless searches, like George Bush invented these things or in responsible for them. Suspension of habeas corpus for prisoners of war has been the standard for nearly 65 years in the United States. In fact, President Lincoln utilized it during wartime. Also, before moving forward on it, President Bush consulted congress, or as I like to call them elected representatives of the people, and had its full support, included the democrats. Meanwhile, there is a legal standard for searches without warrants. Indeed, it's provided for in the U.S. Constitution, and the Bush administration followed the standard required by the court.

Re:Their America?

[Enderandrew]

However, we do know from past experiences that Newt Gingrich doesn't believe in Free Speech. He spearheaded and passed the Telecommunications Decency Act of 1994 if you recall, which made it a federal crime punishable by prison and a $200,000 fine to transmit anything offensive over an electronic medium.

When interviewed he openly stated that he knew it was unconstitutional, and that he didn't believe in free speech.

The law was stricken, not for being unconstitutional, but for being unenforcible.