Definition of “looking down your nose at someone.”
Union Leader – Gingrich raises alarm at event honoring those who stand up for freedom of speech – Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2006 — While not using the word abolished, you can see where he is headed with this. Exactly how any of this will prevent a terrorist attack is unknown. But abolishing Freedom of Speech will certainly allow the government to turn into a virtual dictatorship. Apparently this is where the Republican Conservative movement has taken us.
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, 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 GOPs takeover of Congress in 1994.
Gingrich spoke to about 400 state and local power brokers last night at the annual Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment award dinner, which fetes people and organizations that stand up for freedom of speech.
For starters it just means the end of this and other freedom-loving blogs as is the case in the UAE.
found by Tom Henderson
#20 – If you are callous enough to believe that money equals speech…
Which it doesn’t.
sig heil Newt!
WTF does that Newt care… He uses the Constitution for toilet paper.
He should just sell GEICO insurance, and stay out of politics!
To say that money = speech is a bit of an oversimplification. The freedom to spend my money as I choose, especially to make my voice heard, IS speech. There’s where McCain-Feingold annoys me.
24: No, you’re over-complicating the idea by restating the same thing, twice.
#14, 12,
I just read the effing article three times over.
I still would like you to show me where the QUOTE him as saying free speech should be reduced.
I’m not a fan of Mr. Gingrich, but I smell FUD, and it isn’t coming from him.
Comment by BryanP — 11/28/2006 @ 3:16 pm
The very first paragraph of the article. While not a direct quote, is the journalist’s summary of Gingrich’s speech.
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.
The opening of the Editor’s comment,
While not using the word abolished, you can see where he is headed with this.
Now, try reading the “effen” article a fourth time with your eyes open this time.
Painfully obvious where this will lead .
So if you speak out against the gov you will be considered a terrorist.
Sad
PARENTS and parents to be WARNING: DO NOT name your child NEWT..it makes them act like jerks for the rest of their lives.
The level of speech in the world has been dumbed down enough already, so if this proposal means it stops people like Bush from freely expressing themselves badly, then go for it.
OFTLO, you’re not allowed to run ads mentioning an officeholder by name. They also came close to regulating internet websites. Also, they’ve banned negative ads, or at least any ad that doesn’t have the candidate saying he approves the message.
Why does Newt or anyone else think that the government regulating speech will prevent any terrorist from committing his acts?
Does any sane person actually think terrorists are going to say “Well, the US government does not permit certain ideas, so we will not set off our bombs?”
I am old enough to remember when “Banned in Boston” on the cover of a mediocre book book was enough to turn it into a best seller. Banning a bad idea never stops an idea, it only gives it legitimacy.
The best way to combat a bad idea is to leave it out in the open, where it has to compete in the marketplace of ideas. Bad ideas examined wither away, good ones rise to the top. The same with ideologies, ultimately they fail the test of time and wither away.
We did not defeat Soviet Communism by banning discussion of it. But Communism did not allow honest examination of other ideologies, and it ultimatly lost — big time.
We will lose big time also if we allow the government to tell us what we can read and write. We will lose our most basic and precious freedom. The terrorists will have won more than they ever dreamed, and they will have been helped by Gingrich and the other fear-mongers.
Freedom of speech is everything we as American citizenship stands for!
What Spencer said.
I’ve already seen too many examples of cash=speech.
CNN, Reuters, AP, Don King, Jesse Jackson, Danny Glover….
If all you lefties love free speech so much, why is “hate speech” banned?
If speaking out against someone simply because they’re gay or a different race or religion or their eyes are too close together or whatever is really bad, the marketplace of ideas will defeat it.
“The Evil Right (TM) is trying to take away all or freedoms…” – fortunately my tinfoil hat protects me from these kinds of fears.
You know, we had a good run with the whole “free speech” thing. Did anybody expect it to last this long?
I, for one, welcome our new…
Wait, hold that shit. I’ll resist til the day I die to say what I want to say and let others do the same.
Spencer, the article doesn’t list any specifics by Newt, but I think he is actually talking about restricting privacy and monitoring internet conversations.
“If all you lefties love free speech so much, why is “hate speech” banned?”
Hate speech isn’t banned.
There are limitations on speech, such as not being able to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, or directing people to commit violent acts. However, I can make hateful comments about anyone I so choose as much as I want to (if I wanted to).
BryanP, I’m with you. I want at least a complete transcript, and preferably a complete recording before I go off the deep end.
But if it’s true, then I’d consider him to be a truly freaking* idiot.
* supply your own F word there.
38 Hate speech isn’t banned.
The target of your invective can just file a civil suit.
…or just have people say your “career is over” ala Michael Richards
OT: I love how many articles mention his tirade was “caught on tape” when it seems to have been a cell-phone video???
http://www.tmz.com/2006/11/20/kramers-racist-tirade-caught-on-tape/