Gingrich defends free speech curbs
MANCHESTER – 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.
It’s always been a hard and fast rule here at TPRS that there can be no repeat DUMB@$$ AWARD wieners. I don’t want to be seen as encouraging ignorance and depravity (like those things aren’t their own rewards), and since there are always plenty of candidates out there, I like to share the “wealth”. In the case of former DUMB@$$ AWARD wiener and former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich, I’m going to have to make an exception. Why? Because what Gingrich is proposing is so astonishingly ignorant, so anti-Democratic, and so in opposition to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and everything this country stands for that I’m astonished and floored by the depths of his ignorance and depravity.
In true Republican “we must kill the patient in order to save it” fashion, Gingrich is seriously proposing curbing freedom of speech (Loose lips sink ships, don’tchaknow??). That someone so obviously intelligent as Gingrich (who, though a confirmed DUMB@$$, is by no means a stupid man) could in all seriousness proposes curbing free speech to combat terrorism should scare the hell out of any reasonable person.
“Our friends at the ‘ACLU left,’ of course, were staggered at this concept,” Gingrich told an audience of Republicans at a Christmas banquet. “How could we talk about anything less than 100 percent free speech? How could we consider in any way thinking about this issue?”
While this might seem perfectly reasonable to any “REAL American” on the surface, it completely ignores the question of who gets to determine who’s a “terrorist”. And who gets to define “terrorist”? Gingrich no doubts wants Conservative Republicans making these decisions, and given the mindset of most Conservatives, the definition of “terrorist” is nothing if not overly broad. Bearded, swarthy men…anyone who “looks” Muslim…Liberal Democrats…Packers fans…any American who opposes the narrow, fear-based Conservative agenda; where will it stop? Will it stop? I would submit that it won’t until angry, fearful Conservative Republicans once again have a deathgrip on power.
Rather than present a reasoned, rational defense of his frankly indefensible argument, Gingrich proceeds to demonstrate exactly why Conservatives should not be allowed back into power:
Gingrich cited last month’s ejection of six Muslim scholars from a plane in Minneapolis for suspicious behavior, which included reports they prayed before the flight and had sat in the same seats as the Sept. 11 hijackers.
“Those six people should have been arrested and prosecuted for pretending to be terrorists,” Gingrich said. “And the crew of the U.S. airplane should have been invited to the White House and congratulated for being correct in the protection of citizens.”
Six AMERICAN CITIZENS should have been arrested and prosecuted for “pretending to be terrorists”? WTF? I have an even better idea. Perhaps they should have been given a show trial and summarily executed for “flying while not obviously White and Christian”. THAT will show our resolve to fight terrorism, don’t you think?
What truly scares the Hell out of me is that Gingrich is giving serious consideration to running for President. What this DUMB@$$ might do if he finds himself in the Oval Office is a truly frightening prospect. While he and other Conservatives accuse Liberals of hating America, I wonder if Gingrich realizes just how anti-American his ideas truly are.
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.
Ah, I see; so, if you “look” like a “terrorist”, the burden of proof is on you to prove that you’re not. First, we gut free-speech rights, and then we blow up the presumption of innocence…and then habeas corpus goes on permanent hiatus. (Well, that last point would explanation Club Gitmo, I suppose….). So, in the final analysis, the Constitution is really only just a sheet of paper, eh?
What Gingrich is proposing should scare the s—t out of any reasonable American, because what he is proposing is the gutting our of Constitutional rights. We should be asking who will be defining “terrorism”? And who will be determining what speech and whose speech will be curtailed? If Gingrich has anything to say about it, the people making these decisions will be him and people like him? So, when you get right down to it, his proposals have nothing at all to do with terrorism. It’s all about political power and who gets to wield it.
Cue the black helicopters and the jack-booted thugs….
