First Amendment Under Fire?

B

badbob

Moderator
Gingrich wants to "re-examine" free speech. What do you think? Seems to be a mixed message.
Full article here:http://www.unionleader.com/article....rticleId=d3f4ee4e-1e90-475a-b1b0-bbcd5baedd78

Gingrich raises alarm at event honoring those who stand up for freedom of speech
By RILEY YATES
Union Leader Staff
14 hours, 53 minutes ago


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

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

badbob
 
If it has come to pass that we seriously consider changing our Constitution, then the terrorists have already won. I have always figured that the damage they could do to the USA is far less than we could do to ourselves.

db
 
Do supporters of the "Contract on America" get it yet?

The Constitution, in their opinion, is outdated and serves only to let criminals doing horrible acts (like carrying a pain pill in the wrong container or having a child porn picture hacked onto his computer or carrying concealed in a post office) go free, and they think it's time for it to go.
 
First amendment under fire? Already been done.

McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA).

(For those with short memories)
 
Antipitas, thats what I meant by mixed messages. Ol' Newt seems to be all over the place, plus this was a "First Amendment" award dinner.

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
Click to expand...

badbob
 
Taking statements out of context notwithstanding, this article doesn't even quote *one complete sentence* where Gingrich says anything threatening the 1st Amendment.

Tim
 
We are going down that road faster

To Communism, with unconstitutional laws like they have passed recently. They will go after talk radio, and whistle blowers and anyone who brings corruption to light. They are using the terror card to do it. More nails in our coffin. But we keep prying them out.
 
"My prediction to you is that either 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," Gingrich said in the transcript.

"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," he said
Click to expand...

This is from Miami's Channel 10 News site.

The first sentence of the second paragraph suggests that he knows very well that he's talking about curbing the 1st amendment in ways we might not like.
 
The first amendment is under under fire every time a Republican wants to ban nudity on TV because he finds it "immoral and indecent". The first amendment is under fire every time a Democrat wants to fine Mancow 300 grand for dropping the F-bomb on public airwaves because "it's for the children". The first amendment is under fire every time the Boy Scouts recieve federal funding yet are allowed to discriminate based on sexual preference because it's a religious organization. The first amendment is under fire every time someone suggests that news agencies should be tried to treason for revealing crimes commited by the government. The first amendment is under fire every time "free speech zones" are set up to keep protestors from making Bush look bad on camera.

The only difference between the attacks on the first and second amendments is that the second only has one thing to attack while the first has five.
 
If it has come to pass that we seriously consider changing our Constitution, then the terrorists have already won. I have always figured that the damage they could do to the USA is far less than we could do to ourselves.
Click to expand...

The damage has already occurred via the following Legislation listed (and the Unconstitutional Treaty Arrangement) below, to name just a few.

"Military Commissions Act"

"John Warner Defense Authorization Act"

"Patriot Act"

"North American Partnership Agreement"
 
Keith Olbermann did a segment on Newt's comments:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15951435/
The video is also on this site.

Gingrich against freedom of speech?
Nov. 28: At a dinner honoring the First Amendment, Newt Gingrich reportedly suggested a "different set of rules" might be necessary to stop terrorists using freedom of speech to get out their message. Keith Olbermann discusses the constitutionality of this with Jonathan Turley.

badbob
 
"We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city

Sounds like Newt gets it.
Click to expand...

Yes he does. He gets that if he guts the constitutional rights of the citizens, it decreases the power of citizens and increases the power of government officials such as himself, making him and his cronies richer and more powerful. Fascist, pure and simple (and a hypocritical fascist at that, having opposed - correctly - mccain-feingold).

Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
--William Pitt

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
--Benjamin Franklin

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.
--Patrick Henry

Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.
--Robert H. Jackson

The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke

Despotism sits nowhere so secure as under the effigy and ensigns of Freedom.
--W. S. Landor

Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purpose is beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
--Louis Dembitz Brandeis


The illusion of freedom [in America] will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.
--Frank Zappa

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
--Samuel Johnson

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
--John Philpot Curran

Aww, but its not like those old geezers were wise or anything.....

And Gingrich actually says this at a 1A dinner - talk about a fly in your pudding.
 
free speech under fire again

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/01/D8LODMTG0.html

Court Takes 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' Case
Dec 01 8:48 PM US/Eastern

By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON



The Supreme Court stepped into a dispute over free speech Friday involving a suspended high school student and his banner that proclaimed "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

The justices agreed to hear the appeal by the Juneau, Alaska, school board and principal Deborah Morse of a lower court ruling that allowed the student's civil rights lawsuit to proceed. The school board hired former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr to argue its case to the high court.

Morse suspended Frederick after he displayed the banner, with its reference to marijuana use, when the Olympic torch passed through Juneau in 2002 on its way to the Winter Games in Salt Lake City.

Frederick, then a senior, was off school property when he hoisted the banner but was suspended for violating the school's policy of promoting illegal substances at a school-sanctioned event.

The school board upheld the suspension, and a federal judge initially dismissed Frederick's lawsuit. The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said the banner was vague and nonsensical and Frederick's civil rights had been violated.

At that point, the school board retained Starr, who investigated President Clinton's relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. He took the case free of charge.

The appeals court said that even if the banner could be construed as a positive message about marijuana use, the school could not punish or censor a student's speech because it promotes a social message contrary to one the school favors.

Frederick said his motivation for unfurling the banner, at least 14 feet long, was simple: He wanted it seen on television since the torch relay event was being covered by local stations. When Morse saw it, she crossed the street from the school, grabbed the banner and crumpled it. She later suspended Frederick for 10 days.

Morse still works for the Juneau school system but is no longer the high school principal. Frederick is a student at the University of Idaho.

The court is expected to hear arguments in the case in late February. In addition to the First Amendment issue, the court also will consider whether Morse can be held personally liable for monetary damages.

The appeals panel said she could be held liable because she admitted to being aware of the pertinent case law regarding student rights. The court said the law was clear and Morse was aware of it when she punished Frederick.

The case is Juneau School Board v. Frederick, 06-278.
Click to expand...
 
I'm surprised they didn't boo that idiot Gingrich off the stage and toss him out of the dinner.

Just goes to show ya how anything can be nibbled away at til it becomes palatable.

I liken all these attacks on the constitution to the simple carpentry act of hammering a nail into a tough board. The carpenter of course is the powers that be ... big government wanting to get bigger and more powerful.

Driving the nail into the board is the agenda. The board itself is the people.

The carpenter knows he wants to drive that nail in ... but the board resists. So he keeps pounding away at it until it's driven in ... and then it's a real bitch to get out.
 
Good analogy, Petre. Gingrich is trying to put perfume on a pig and using the fear of terrorism to push a fascist agenda. The fact that he did this at a First Amendment awards dinner really blows my mind. The comments sound like something you would hear at a CFR or Trilateral Commision meeting.

badbob
 
Choosing between the Dems and the Republicans is like choosing between the Communists and the Nazis. The BOR is already swirling down the porcelain pony. The only reason the peons don't know is because the federal govt took over education and promulgated ignorance to the point that the majority have no idea of our heritage and history. One more terror attack and it will be the death knell for what's left of American liberty. The drooling masses will beg the Feds to assume plenary powers- all in the name of security of course. It is your patriotic duty to board the cattle cars quietly. You will, of course, be released once the Sicherheits Polizei are convinced you harbor no dangerous thoughts.
 
The only reason the peons don't know is because the federal govt took over education and promulgated ignorance to the point that the majority have no idea of our heritage and history.
Click to expand...
No, the information is there and it's the same information that's always been available. The problem is not the government taking away history or duping school children, the problem is that kids don't want to learn because their parents don't make them. Their parents don't care either. People are too caught up with the minor inconveniences of life to really give a damn about the way our country runs.

People don't know heritage and history because they don't care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top