Welcome to PatsFans.com

Prominent Republican wants to "reexamine freedom of speech"

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Seymour93, Nov 29, 2006.

  1. Seymour93

    Seymour93 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,681
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    File this one under "digging their own grave"...

    http://www.unionleader.com/article....rticleId=d3f4ee4e-1e90-475a-b1b0-bbcd5baedd78

  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    Gingrich is trying to position himself as a Republican Candidate for the Prez in '08, he has a real checkered past which will probably come back to haunt him, if you thought Clinton was a .... hound, you ain't seen nothing until the skeletons in this guys closet come out. I don't see him as being able to do much, but he is garnering a lot of attention and publicity.
  3. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,502
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    Times Change, enemy's change, we no longer drive horse and wagons, the new enemy "USES" our freedoms in their plans to kill us and you.

    If Thomas Jefferson had heard about Osama Bin Laden and The Uncle Teddy Gang he would fully agree with Newt Gingrich.

    When the Constitution was written they were still using "Outhouses"
    :bricks:
  4. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    So which freedoms do you think should be revised, Harry? How do you propose we do it, by amendment or just by ignoring the parts of the constitution we don't like?
  5. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    I know one thing, I am fine with unfettered monitoring of phone and internet communication by the government. If I were a terrorist than I am fine with the government "listening in" to see who I'm talking to if it will find other terrorists.

    Sorry, it's the world we live in. As Gingrich said, better than that to lose a city.
  6. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Ok, I'll play along. What safeguards would you put in place to prevent a repeat of J. Edgar Hoover's practice of using government information for personal political gain? If the process is unchecked by judges, who watches the watchers?
  7. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    I don't have exact limits in mind right now. But at a high level I'm more interested in "who watches the terrorists" than "who watches the watchers".
  8. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    You need to be interested in both. If you want to take away a safeguard (the courts) you need to replace it with another. It's not a hypothetical problem, spying powers have a history of being abused.
  9. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    Maybe I need to be interested in both but I'm WAY more interested in getting terrorists right now. I'm fine with helping the bigger problem by allowing unfettered spying and then dealing with what the limits should be. But right now I want to get the terrorists in any way possible.

    It would suck to see NY, Boston or Chicago nuked and that's where we're heading.
  10. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    See, I think it's hundreds of time less likely that terrorists will nuke a city, compared to the likelyhood of the government spying on innocent people.

    If you're willing to get the terrorists in any way possible, why not cameras in every home and business?
  11. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    Gingrich is a has been. He's a little too loony for my taste. He is going to run in 2008, for what reason I have no idea. The guy has no chance. He speaks as much for the GOP as Jimmy Carter does for the Dems. They're former players who no one really takes seriously anymore.

    As for Freedom of speech, don't touch it. I'm opposed to flag buring amendments which should show you all how much I believe in the Constitution. Now, that doesn't mean that todays troubles aren't serious. Obvioulsy as civilization matures, threats do too. We need to be reasonable and adjust accordingly when dealing with said threats. I'm all for the NSA wire tapping, only, I'm not for a free pass when it comes to checks and balances. I certainly don't think we need to piss on the constituiton to ensure safety. The problem with this is the politics involved. Niether side wants to do whats right, they only want to do what's right for them politically.
  12. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    Sure the nuking of a city is less likely. But the consequences are much higher.

    For Middle Eastern immigrants, I have no interest in their "rights". Their countrymen have earned that for them.
  13. PatsFaninAZ

    PatsFaninAZ Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,097
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    Islamic terrorists are not the first threat to the Union. In fact, starting in 1812, the Republic has been subject thoughout its history to a barrage of threats to its existence. It's funny that people who have coined the term "Islamofascists" seem to forget that facism too was a pernicious threat our nation's survival.

    Through it all, our Constitution has perservered. The reality is that you believe the Framers had wisdom and foresight or you don't. If you don't believe that, the U.S.A. is pretty much no different than any number of other nations. If you believe in the "Great Experiment," then you have to go where it takes you. No single proposition was more instrumental to the framers than the notion that Democracy is incredibly fragile and that its preservation as a healthy organism cannot exist without free speech.
  14. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    So you only support cameras in the homes of Middle Eastern immigrants?
  15. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    Let's remember how black a mark WW II was in this country for Japanese Americans. I don't think we ever want to go their again. I think people need to be realistic, and middle easterners, or muslims, need to understand that they are going to be surveiled a little differently than most. It sucks, but it's reality. I don't think we should treat them any differently, as much as we should use common sense when considering specific situations.
  16. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,502
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    Whatever is needed to keep the Savage "OUT" they could start with asking why anybody would want to learn how to fly a plane but they didn't want to learn how to land it.

    They could also put signs up in all public Airports reading, "Dear Muslims, if you have to pray please do so before entering the Terminal or boarding your plane".

    They should also be allowed to wiretap all American Mosques and all Calls coming to and from the Middle East and other Countries that practice the Muslim religion.

    Profiling should be the law in all ports of entry in America including Canada.

    The military should be on guard at all borders both north and south with orders to shoot to kill anyone that disobeys their orders to halt.

    Auntie Pelosi should be ordered by the Supreme court to "Stop Grinning" we all now know what her teeth look like.

    Al "Crazy" Gore and John "Fonda" Kerry should never be allowed out of their houses again.

    Another 9/11 WILL HAPPEN, it is just a matter of time, the Savage is patient.
  17. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    I know you'll throw the occasional non Middle Easterner at me but it's a likelihood-consequence thing. It's overwhelmingly more likely for an immigrant from the Middle East.
  18. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    You haven't answered the question, do you support government cameras in the homes of all Middle Easterners?
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2006
  19. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    No.

    But internet and phone taps, yes.
  20. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Seems like an arbitrary line. If they know we're only listening to their electronic conversations, they'll just meet in person. The only way to keep us safe is to monitor EVERYTHING.
  21. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,502
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    Yes

    OUR ENEMY'S ARE MIDDLE EASTENERS, NOT ALL MIDDLE EASTENERS ARE OUR ENEMY BUT ALL OF OUR ENEMY ARE MIDDLE EASTENERS.

    THE GOOD MIDDLE EASTENERS SHOULD HELP US FIND THE BAD MIDDLE EASTENERS, (WILL THEY, THEY HAVEN'T DONE SO YET) WHEN THE BAD ONES ATTACK ALL OVER THE WORLD THE GOOD ONES RUN FOR THEIR MOSQUES AND HIDE.

    WE HAVEN'T BEEN ATTACKED BY SOUTHERN BAPTISTS WE HAVE BEEN ATTACKED BY MIDDLE EASTERNERS.

    KEEP AN EYE ON THEM, THEY WILL ATTACK AGAIN, YOU CAN BET ON IT.
  22. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Gotcha, so the way to deal with the enemy is to put a camera into the home of every Middle Easterner, citizen or not, law abiding or not? Do you think we need to amend the constitution first, or can we do it anyway because it's so important?
  23. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    How exactly did Gingrich say that the first amendment in terms of speech needed to be reformed?


    I know there were exceptions made in terms of yelling fire in a crowded theatre, making threats against the Prez and talking about bombs in an airport and things of that nature.
  24. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I was the one who brought up amending the first amendment, and not because Newt said it. I was wondering whether people who agree with him think the best choice is to:
    1. Change the first amendment.
    2. Try litigation to re-interpert the first amendment to add exceptions (like your examples).
    3. To ignore the first amendment where we feel it's incompatible with our goals of fighting terrorism.
  25. PatsFaninAZ

    PatsFaninAZ Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,097
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    I don't think it's correct to call these things "exceptions." I think the point of the cases upholding restrictions on these sorts of activities is that it's not the content of speech that's being regulated, but the conduct.

    Just to take bizzare examples, if you are speeding and get a ticket, you cannot get out of the ticket by claiming that you were using speeding to communicate your displeasure about the President. While this may be speech, the government is not regulating your speech. It's regulating the speed at which you were driving. Similarly, if you shoot the pope and claim it was to send a message, this too is speech. But the government is putting you in jail not to stop your speech, but because it is regulating your conduct.

    Similarly, you can separate out the act from the speech in making threats to the President or yelling fire in a movie theater. Contrast this with flag burning, where you cannot separate the act from the speech. To go back to the pope example, it's illegal to shoot anyone in the head. But it's not illegal to burn any cloth on the courthouse steps -- just a flag -- so the government is plainly regulating speech in that context. (I'm not trying to get into a debate about flag burning here. I'm just explaining the difference.)

    Talking about bombs in an airport is regulation of speech, but it's a whole different ball of wax that gets in the notion of content based v. content neutral restrictions and public v. nonpublic forums. It's too complicated, but it's not an "exception" either.
  26. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    First, I dont think the First Amendment should be changed (Much like I dont think the SECOND amendment should be changed unlike many liberals)

    I just dont know how changing anything to fight the war on terrorism will help? John Q. Muslim in anytown USA can decry the war on terror and call us all infidels all day long as far as I'm concerned. As long as he doesnt start strapping dynamite to his chest and heading to crowded markets then we're cool.
  27. PatsFaninAZ

    PatsFaninAZ Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,097
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    Putting the word "liberals" in a discussion about the 2d amendment is kind of silly, since I think the ones who most favor a strong second amendment tend to be libertarians.

    Anyway, the dispute between those who favor a strong second amendment and those who favor a weak second amendment has nothing to do with anyone wanting to change it. I think most people assume that the second amendment says "The people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed." If it said that -- if it were absolute like the First Amendment's speech protection -- I don't think there would be much of a fight.

    The fight is over the fact that the Framers in a rather unique situation, added an introductory clause to the second amendment that qualifies it. The true debate about the second amdendment -- at least the debate by intelligent people and constitutional scholars -- has nothing to do with wanting to change it, but instead has to do with understanding what the framers had in mind by the words, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." No other one of the many rights in the bill of rights is qualified in this way. They obviously had something in mind.

    To answer that question, you need to understand what the problem is that the Framers were getting at, and also (more importantly) to understand the way that people wrote and used language in 1791. They tended to use more passive voice and tended to put qualifications first (unlike traditional usage, which puts them second). If you look at statutes from the first congress, or even contracts from those days, you see this structure. Today, we would say, "A will purchase from B 10 barrels of oil, unless the price on the world market goes above $72 a barrel," while our forefathers would have said, "unless the price on the world market goes above $72 a barrel, A will purchase from B 10 barrels of oil."

    In any event, imagine the bill of rights contained another amendment. Imagine it said:

    A. "The right to an abortion shall not be abridged," or

    B. "The right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy in the case of rape or incest or to save her own life being fundamental to an ordered society, the right to an abortion shall not be abridged."

    Do A and B mean the same thing?

    Maybe, maybe not. That's the debate about the second amendment. Not whether the amendment should be "changed."
  28. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Exactly! I believe there's a constitutional right to own guns, within reasonable limits, but I don't see it as coming from the 2nd amendment. Rather I see it coming from a concept that isn't directly mentioned anywhere in the constitution: the right to be left alone unless you abridge that right for someone else. Likewise, I think there is a constitutional right to use drugs or go to a prostitute. The courts don't agree with me, of course, but that's my interpertation.

Share This Page