Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2006 > December > 07 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USOnce more into the breach: Newt and the First Amendment, again
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Newt Gingrich, the non-candidate for president in ‘08, confesses that his remarks of last week, suggesting limits on free speech to curb talk among terrorists, “must have hit a nerve.”
On Wednesday, the Union-Leader of New Hampshire, where Gingrich made his speech (during an event celebrating the First Amendment, no less), published an op-ed piece by the former House speaker, on the same topic.
Some excerpts:
We need a serious dialogue — not knee-jerk hysteria — about the 1st Amendment, what it protects and what it should not protect. Here are a few baseline principles to consider:
We should be allowed to close down Web sites that recruit suicide bombers and provide instructions to indiscriminately kill civilians by suicide or other means, or advocate killing people from the West or the destruction of Western civilization;
We should propose a Geneva-like convention for fighting terrorism that makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous. A subset of this convention should define the international rules of engagement on what activities will not be protected by free speech claims; and
We need an expeditious review of current domestic law to see what changes can be made within the protections of the 1st Amendment to ensure that free speech protection claims are not used to protect the advocacy of terrorism, violent conduct or the killing of innocents.
Can’t wait for Bob Barr to weigh in on this.
Services »
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By John Baker
December 7, 2006 1:14 PM | Link to this
Newt is a smart guy, but advocating the amendment of the 1st Amendment is a bit extreme.
Also, Newt seems to be stealing the Geneva Conventions idea (which actually has merit) from another Georgian - Scott Holcomb - who published an op-ed on this topic in the Christian Science Monitor a couple weeks before Newt’s speech. It’s been covered on several Georgia political blogs.
We’ll have to see what happens to these ideas. My guess is nothing.
By uncle jessie
December 7, 2006 2:37 PM | Link to this
Whats yall fussin bout rights and amenments. Abe the Babe done away wit constitution 150 yars ago. Jest ask George “its just a piece a paper” Bush bout Patriot Act.
By MrLiberty
December 21, 2006 7:33 PM | Link to this
What is the point of another Geneva convention? Our current leadership does not obey the Geneva conventions that we have already signed. They invaded a sovereign nation that never attacked us and have been killing innocents by the tens of thousands. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, and everyone in the military from the top to the lowest private are guilty of war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity.
Until Newt is prepared to discuss the current situation in this country and the violations of the existing conventions, there is no point in discussing anything further.
Besides, terrorism is just another word for anything that opposes OUR government’s actions. It is really only a matter of time before anyone speaking out against the government’s acitons is considered a terrorist.
I can definitely say that Jefferson, Madison, and every other founding father would agree that it is exactly that kind of speech that the first amendment was SPECIFICALLY INTENDED TO PROTECT.
Newt is just another Fascist/Totalitarian that has correctly recognized that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution stand in the way of their destroying america. Bush conveniently never bothered to read either, that’s why he’s never seen them as a barrier to his plans.