Gingrich on Free Speech
Yesterday, speaking at the annual Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment awards banquet, Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich hinted at the idea of ‘modifying’ freedom of speech laws to curb terrorism.
Gingrich suggested that a ‘new set of rules’ may be needed to curb the use of the internet by terrorists.
“We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade.”
Although keeping the specifics quite vague, Gingrich did criticize recent campaign finance laws stating that they do nothing to really curb political attack ads, and do more to reduce our freedom of speech. He also criticized church and state laws, claiming that they do nothing more than weaken the American publics ability to freely express themselves and their faith.
On those two points I COMPLETELY agree with him. McCain / Feingold hampers our freedom of speech more than it helps, so what if you can’t run a negative ad so many days out from an election… run enough before the deadline and it does just as much damage. Now that they’re talking of expanding the bill to include political blogging, where do we stop? Take away my freedom to even DISCUSS politics online and you’ve stepped way over the line. As for the Church and State laws… I feel they too have gone WAY over the line. Government steps in when there is no need to step in, to put the brakes on festivals, yard displays etc. simply on the basis that a non-Christian could possibly become offended.
Unless someone can come up with a positive way to monitor and control terrorist activity in the US without stepping on MY rights as an American… I’m not for any sort of amendment modifications.

Jenn
28 Nov, 2006
I watched about 30 seconds of him last night, I was doing something else, so I had to come back and look at it later.
No. No curbs on “free speech”. If it’s hate speech, there are already laws. Enforce them.
James
28 Nov, 2006
Hate Speech is bullcrap anyway…
Bob beats and kills Jim because he was drunk and in a fit of rage. Bob happened to be White and Jim happened to be Black.
Any rational person would be able to obtain the evidence, testimonies etc. and conclude that Bob is just a moron and guilty of murdering Jim.
Anyone that believes that crimes involving two different racial groups MUST be racially motivated will invoke “hate crimes” legislation. As is par for the course “possible” motives behind the crime are brought up as if they were pure fact. Assuming that the crime was committed because the victim was of a different race not due to lack of judgment from a drunken state.
Libertarian Jason
3 Dec, 2006
YEs.. we don’t need MORE curbs on individual rights.
Kudos… you are on the right side of this issue.