Newt Gingrich defends his statements on restricting speech

Published on December 17th, 2006

When we first covered this, people accused us of twisting Newt’s words. Now Newt is defending his original statements by attacking the Bill of Rights as well. In the linked article he basically says you are guilty until proven innocent, especially if you are accused of being a terrorist.

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.

In an interview, Gingrich said it is possible to distinguish between terrorists and others when looking to fight threatening expression.

“If you give me any signal in the age of terrorism that you’re a terrorist, I’d say the burden of proof was on you,” Gingrich said.

Any signal? Where does that leave your rights?

36 users responded in " Newt Gingrich defends his statements on restricting speech "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Bill said, on December 17th, 2006 at 5:54 pm

Yep – wanting to destroy the Bill of Rights is a signal someone is a terrorist. So I guess the burden of proof for Newt is to prove he isn’t one.

# 2 Jägermeister said, on December 17th, 2006 at 5:59 pm

Perhaps Time magazine should have made him the Person of the year a second time.

# 3 George L Smyth said, on December 17th, 2006 at 6:02 pm

Was this part of his Contract With America?

# 4 Jägermeister said, on December 17th, 2006 at 6:04 pm

#3 – Was this part of his Contract With America?

No, it was part of his contract with Al-Qaeda.

# 5 TJGeezer said, on December 17th, 2006 at 6:22 pm

Here’s the irony. If they hauled Rush off to Gitmo for making subversive attacks on the Constitution and the American way of life it protects, those idealists over at the ACLU would jump in and defend his right to spout his seditious, evil crap. Wait – that’s not funny, is it. Just true. And sad. Imagine a former Speaker of the House simply not understanding what freedom is about.

# 6 ECA said, on December 17th, 2006 at 6:32 pm

well considering that this would limit 1 in 4 words in most posts…

# 7 Gary Marks said, on December 17th, 2006 at 6:35 pm

It’s just a shame that all madmen aren’t as easy to spot as Gingrich. After treatment, the burden of proof will be on him to show that his sanity has been restored.

Heil Gingrich, and Merry Christmas to all.

# 8 Spencer said, on December 17th, 2006 at 6:45 pm

The coward Gingrich has already surrendered.

If the rest of us join Gingrich and give up our rights, then the terrorists will have won a total victory. I don’t think they ever imagined we would surrender our most cherished values to them this easily.

What the hell ever happened to my country? We used to fear nothing.

# 9 Jägermeister said, on December 17th, 2006 at 6:59 pm

I don’t this will ****** ** *** ** ****. ** **** ***** ** *** **** *******. *** ********** ***.

# 10 FRAGaLOT said, on December 17th, 2006 at 7:05 pm

#8 EXTREMELY EXCELLENT point my friend!

The fact that we reacted at all that disrupted our way of life is a logical victory for those terrorists. And we are still dealing with the BS from it after 5 years.

# 11 James Hill said, on December 17th, 2006 at 7:24 pm

And in other news, Newt said he’ll run for President if a clear frontrunner for the Republican party isn’t established by the fall.

Har. Har har.

At the rate things are going, even I’ll be voting for Hillary.

# 12 John Paradox said, on December 17th, 2006 at 7:25 pm

“biological or nuclear attack”

Blankets with smallpox?

How many nukes did the USSR have pointed at the US?

J/P=?

# 13 Mr. Fusion said, on December 17th, 2006 at 7:33 pm

To think there will be some of that “Law and Order” crowd that will believe him. And he thinks wearing a little American Flag lapel pin makes him a patriot.

The people like Gingrich make Dennis Kusinich look like an even better Democratic candidate.

# 14 Gary Marks said, on December 17th, 2006 at 8:03 pm

lol – thanks, Alix. The subtlety of the photo switch didn’t go unnoticed, sir.

# 15 Devildunkard said, on December 17th, 2006 at 8:29 pm

It’s funny that he is using his right to free speach to say that we shouldn’t have the right to free speach. Maybe he should practice what he preaches and shut up.

# 16 doug said, on December 17th, 2006 at 8:38 pm

#12. recall that there was already a biological attack on the US – the anthrax letters that started cropping up shortly after Sept 11. The Fibbies pointed the finger at one guy, the slunk away when there was no proof.

good thing that the burden of proof wasnt on him or he would be sharing a Gitmo cell with some other guy they are holding on a hunch ….

# 17 BgScryAnml said, on December 17th, 2006 at 8:41 pm

Rights…Rights???Rights!!!

Your God given rights have been traded for “CIVIL” rights. Your CIVIL rights are what ever the UNITED STATES government tells you. In other words, you have no Rights.

# 18 Jägermeister said, on December 17th, 2006 at 8:57 pm

#12 – How many nukes did the USSR have pointed at the US?

How many Chinese nukes are still aimed at the U.S.? But hey, they’re an important partner…

# 19 Ahmadinejad said, on December 17th, 2006 at 9:06 pm

The article doesn’t give enough context for Gringrich’s remarks. This is the 21st century, there’s no excuse for the new article not to link to the actual speech instead forcing us to rely on the reporter’s pull quote and he impression of the speech.

# 20 Ron said, on December 17th, 2006 at 9:45 pm

In the United States (a Republic not a Democracy, we do not have mob rule) our rights come from God. That is God as a legal concept not a religious concept. That means that God, not Man can take our Rights away. If you are an atheist, you should really support this. Since you believe there is no God, then NO-ONE can take your rights away. If you believe in God, then only He can take your Rights away, not any act from Congress or the President or any other part of the government.

# 21 beeblebrox said, on December 18th, 2006 at 1:37 am

The article doesn’t give enough context for Gringrich’s remarks.

The only “context” that would justify this comment, “If you give me any signal in the age of terrorism that you’re a terrorist, I’d say the burden of proof was on you,” is if he had preceded it with “You’d have to be real douche bag to believe…” and the journalist left that part out.

# 22 Smartalix said, on December 18th, 2006 at 2:44 am

14,

Actually, John made the image switch. It is better, but that’s why he wears the big hat.

# 23 Nekkes said, on December 18th, 2006 at 4:15 am

An outsiders comment: Is this guy Newt completely bonkers? Since when did praying constitute “pretending to be a terrorist”….

# 24 BryanP said, on December 18th, 2006 at 4:19 am

I questioned the previous article. I did not say anyone “twisted his words”, rather that virtually none of the article was quotes, and what was quoted was pretty meaningless. Everything else was “Newt said.” Every story about it linked back to the Union Leader. I couldn’t find any reference to it that didn’t. Call me paranoid, but when a poorly written piece in ONE paper is the only source, I prefer to wait until I can get more facts.

If the quotes in the new article are accurate, Newt has lost what credibility he had left as far as I’m concerned.

# 25 Mike said, on December 18th, 2006 at 6:12 am

Ron Paul for President.

# 26 Roc Rizzo said, on December 18th, 2006 at 7:08 am

These people who claim to defend freedom, while limiting our civil rights do not deserve to be listened to. What if we just ignore the newt, won’t it just go away. These people want the terrorists to win, in that they want to turn this country in to a totalitarian state, rather than be a nation where the rule of law applies to EVERYONE. He also wants to shift the burden of proof to where the accused has to prove that he is NOT guilty. One of the tenets of our government is that a person is INNOCENT, until proven guilty in a court of his or her peers.

I hope the republicans run the newt for president in ‘08. He WILL lose by an historical margin.

# 27 TJGeezer said, on December 18th, 2006 at 9:03 am

26 – Turning the US into a totalitarian state is probably just a side-effect of their main agenda. They want to merge governmental and corporate power and run everything to increase the wealth of those who are on corporate boards or wear “c”-level titles. Such a system fits Mussolini’s definition of Fascism but that’s just a coincidence. Those people are about corporate and personal advantage, and anything else, like hifalutin notions of freedom and liberty and a chicken in every pot, will be spouted only if useful to advance the main agenda. Totalitarians? Nah. They just want to be rich and powerful, and they’re unencumbered by principles.

# 28 Mike said, on December 18th, 2006 at 9:15 am

#27, and just what does “a chicken in every pot” have to do with freedom and liberty?

# 29 catbeller said, on December 18th, 2006 at 2:25 pm

What strikes me in the comments is the often-mentioned “goal” of the terrorists, destroying the U.S. and our freedoms.

Never had any of the Al Queda people stated that as a goal. The GOAL was to get us to leave the military bases in Saudi Arabia; that was bin Laden’s big beef. There is no basis in word or fact for the idea that somehow Al Queda is the new Soviet Union.

The idea for limiting your rights comes entirely from those men who drafted the Patriot Acts 1 and 2; I think we can name names: Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, Ashcroft, and their ventriloquist dummy, Bush. bin Laden really doesn’t care what you say or where you travel.

# 30 catbeller said, on December 18th, 2006 at 2:29 pm

27: You’ve got a good point there. These aren’t the old corporate fascists that liked Hitler and Mussolini. These new corporate people are ideological only in that they want no goovernment control –government corporate welfare, however, is just peachy, but no matter. They want power and that which power grants- wealth.

# 31 Mr. Fusion said, on December 18th, 2006 at 2:52 pm

#20, Ron

The US of A IS a democracy. Like it or not, Americans exercise a republican form of government.

Our rights come from our being men. It does not come from God, some King, or any other artificial construct. We are born with these rights.

The only one who can take away our rights would be a dictator and that would be by force.

Get a book on Civics. Learn a bit about America. I don’t know where you live, but American school kids are usually required to understand the Constitution before they are allowed to graduate.

# 32 Mike said, on December 18th, 2006 at 5:08 pm

“I don’t know where you live, but American school kids are usually required to understand the Constitution before they are allowed to graduate.”

That’s probably being a bit optimistic… I’m just happy if they can make the correct change for me.

# 33 SportySpectator said, on December 18th, 2006 at 8:31 pm

Gingrich is an ass.

# 34 RDaneelOlivaw said, on December 18th, 2006 at 9:30 pm

“The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.”

-Benjamin Franklin

# 35 traaxx said, on December 18th, 2006 at 11:48 pm

I would of thought you would be for this since it means that one couldn’t express any forms of religious thought in public. At least the Muslims couldn’t and since that would give you a good excuse to attack Christians under the banner of equal treatment, you really should be for this.

Leftist already attack First Amendment rights of free speech. They classify anything they don’t like as ‘hate speech’, but that ok because it’s socialist/communist making the distinction. Really for the ACLU to be upset about this is hypocrisy at it’s finest, they read into the Bill of Rights and read out of the Bill of Rights anything that doesn’t suit their agenda of a Socialist/Communist Globalist society, but since they are winning they will get to write the history books.

Really can you tell a terrorist? If someone says that we are going to attack such and such is that free speech? If someone advocates to the overthrow of the US Government and the killing of all blacks, or white, is that free speech? If someone writes a plan to blow up something and put the plan up on the internet is that free speech? Does free speech have it’s limitations? Would tolerate someone saying that no Jews were killed by Hitler? Would you tolerate someone advocating a superior race? I doubt it, the same people the decry Newt would cry for blood with the above free speech, but true free speech has no limitations.

Under true free speech, I could put up someone address, schedule and routine. An invitation of attack yes, but it is true free speech. There are limitation to free speech, what they are has to be decided by us indirectly through a Republican form of government. This infinity better in than in Europe and rest of the World where a minority oligarchy makes such decisions, but rest assured we’re getting there and the NAU will be a big step towards that.

# 36 Greg Allen said, on December 19th, 2006 at 1:57 am

If we’re going to restrict speech in America then, for-the-love-of-all-that’s-good, let’s start with that blowhole Newt Gingrich.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!