Gingrich:Curtail Freedom of Speech to Defeat Terrorism

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Not_Whistlin_Dixie, Nov 28, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is out of office now. Somebody recruited him to float a trial balloon in favor of rescinding government recognition of the right of free speech.

    From the Manchester (New Hampshire) Union Leader via CNN:

    MANCHESTER, New Hampshire -- 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 raises alarm at free-speech dinner" 28 November 2006
    http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/11/manchester-union-leader-gingrich.html
     
  2. Shut up Gingrich you buffoon. You clowns are in free-fall thank god, and even you will realise it shortly.
     
  3. msr

    msr LE

    And let the terrorists win?

    msr
     
  4. Fcuking Mong
     
  5. He was probably thinking GOP standing in the polls, rather than America. That's about the only thing curtailed freedom of speech would protect.

    Mastermind my Arrse. I've pulled more politically astute things off my **** hair after endex.
     
  6. From the New Hampshire Union Leader:

    Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich last night defended his call to limit freedom of speech to combat terrorism, comments that last month provoked strident criticism from liberal groups.

    Gingrich said the threat of biological or nuclear attack requires America to consider curbs to speech to fight terrorists, if it is to protect the society that makes the First Amendment possible.

    "Our friends at the 'ACLU left,' of course, were staggered at this concept," Gingrich told an audience of Republicans at a Christmas banquet. "How could we talk about anything less than 100 percent free speech? How could we consider in any way thinking about this issue?"


    "Gingrich defends free speech curbs"
    By RILEY YATES
    Union Leader Staff
    Saturday, Dec. 16, 2006
    http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Gingrich%2Bdefends%2Bfree%2Bspeech%2Bcurbs&articleId=13419de8-bb62-42f4-9b34-64315f906af3
     
  7. Newt on American television today:

    FMR. REP. GINGRICH: You close down any Web site that is jihadist.

    MR. RUSSERT: But who makes that judgment?

    FMR. REP. GINGRICH: Look, I—you can appoint three federal judges if you want to and say, “Review this stuff and tell us which ones to close down.” I would just like to have them be federal judges who’ve served in combat.

    MR. RUSSERT: Are you concerned, however, that with carte blanche, that the government could move in and say, “This mosque is closed, this Web site is shut down”?

    FMR. REP. GINGRICH: No. You have—you have more censorship in the McCain-Feingold bill, which blocks the right of free speech about American campaigns than you have from the FBI closing down jihadists. We’ve already limited the First Amendment right of free speech by a set of rules that are stunningly absurd. In California, you can raise soft money to run negative commercials attacking your opponent through the state party and you cannot raise soft money to run a positive commercial on behalf of your own candidate. That’s California state law. It’s stunningly stupid and a clear infringement of free speech.

    So we’ve had a 30-year period of saying it’s OK to infringe free speech as long as it’s about politics. But now if you want to be a jihadist, and you want to go kill people, well who are we to say that’s morally wrong? I think that’s suicidal....


    MTP Transcript for Dec. 17
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16153676/page/3/
     
  8. I'm not a particular fan of his (or Draconian measures - his or anyone elses - eroding our freedom of speech) though Gingrich is no bufoon, in his interview with Russert this (Sunday) morning he came across as insightful, extremely knowledgeable and presented many cogent points.
     
  9. But could you really trust a man who allows himself to be known as 'Newt'? :roll:
     
  10. It is not the furtherance of terrorism that the state wishes to curb by restricting the freedom of expression. It is dissent. It is threatened by the dissent of it's own citizens and thus regards dissent as terrorism itself.

    "The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State."

    Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda
     
  11. Had a way with die worte, did wee Joseph. Sometimes you can see the face of Alistair Campbell as you read them...