Gingrich raises alarm at event honoring those who stand up for freedom of speech

I did not realize how much you agreed with Gingrich -- remove my enemy's freedom of speech. Is that not what you just suggested? How did you intend to shut him up? What is 'too late'?

 

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?

 

Missed the 'funny'. But you must have returned to it in your second sentence -- still doesn't sound funny, nor in support of freedom of speech. Why does it bother you so that an individual expresses an opinion that differs from yours?

 

==I have not seen the speech but is it possible that he was just saying "look folks, this is what we are going to be forced to do"? That is probably his point and, sad to say, he maybe right. As for freedom of speech, our society walked away from that years ago. There are whole groups of people in America who we are not "allowed" to be critical of or to speak bad of.

==So you condemn someone who "you think" is opposed to freedom of speech by trying to limit his free speech (ie...shut him up). Like it or not Gingrich may very well be right, we may have to re-examine alot of things here in America in the name of national security.

 

==Well the fact is our laws (etc) were not set up to deal with the kind of threat we now face. In certain areas there maybe no other way to deal with the threat then to restrict certain types of behavior and to engage in certain types of profiling. Not saying I am in favor of it, I am not, I am just stating a reality as I suppose Newt was as well.

==I am refering to society at large.

==Sorry about any misunderstanding, but it can be hard to read emotion in black and white text.

 

The definition of "Freedom of Speech" has constantly been evolving under a liberal activist judiciary.

Why should it not continue to do so?

 

Really? Are science teachers who have done their research actually able to teach evolution truthfully to include its flaws?

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.

 

Mostly because it is convenient shorthand for identifying a person with the views they typically espouse.

He wasn't very specific though was he? Do you have a problem violating one's privacy when they are making calls from the US to countries known to be safe havens for terrorists when the person making the call has been under surveillance?

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."

Do you think a student at Univ of NH has the right to call a black student a n---er without repercussions? Do you think whites in general have a right to call blacks by that name... and moreover should be accepted when they use it?

If not then please explain again why you think an Islamic terrorist has an inalienable right to use public communications to signal subordinates...

What indeed?

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.

Were the soldiers in WW2 when Japanese Americans were put in internment camps? How about when the Great Emancipator himself suspended habeas corpus?

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:

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fara/q_A.htm

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.

 

Can someone please explain to me what "right" is violated by profiling and including race as a factor? Does it really make since to "randomly" pat down grandma Clamplitt instead of looking for men who fit the appearance profile of a terrorist?

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.

 

Live under the libertarian principle that people have the right to associate or not associate according to the dictates of their own conscience.

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.

 

Amen to that, they cant even get the mail out on time.

 

Sounds great -- until you consider Proverbs 14:12 and 16:25. Libertarianism does not stop at association.