Are you out of your blessed mind, Newt? (1 Viewer)

[RebSaint]

As long as their target isn't silencing an American citizen more power to them.

Agreed.

But thusfar, based on what government has done, Americans need to be ever-vigilant whenever any politician discusses the "re-evaluation" of free speech.

 

[DadsDream]

And always be skeptical of any story coming out of a New Hampshire newspaper, especially partial quotes from a speech by a prominent Republican.

 

[Dave]

The Speaker is right, and the fact that he is treading on this third rail is further indication that he will be formidable as a presidential candidate. Plainly, he understands that the modern threat environment requires going back to first constitutional principles rather than simply accepting the law as sculpted by the Warren Court.

As Judge Bork has often pointed out, as late as the 1942 case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court unanimously decreed:

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words—those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. [emphasis added]

The contention that speech inciting violence and lawlessness cannot be regulated is a legacy not of the Constitution but of the Warren Court, which held in Brandenberg v. Ohio (1969) that government could not proscribe advocacy of the use of force (or of other violations of law) “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” (emphasis added).There is no reason why the current Supreme Court could not reconsider whether Brandenberg is faithful to the original understanding of the First Amendment.

But even if – for argument’s sake – we concede that it is, what was “imminent” in the 1960s was far different from what is imminent with today’s technology. What seemed “likely” before the World Trade Center was built is not the same as what is “likely” now that the World Trade Center no longer exists....

McCain/Feingold says the political speech that was the core of the original First Amendment protection can be regulated. Are you really telling me that we can stop someone from speaking out on behalf of a candidate for public office but we have to allow jihadists to call for mass murder? I don’t think so.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjI4MDNlNzFjZjA0ODQyNTI1ZGM2ZDEzN2M2ZWZkYzA=

 

[RebSaint]

And always be skeptical of any story coming out of a New Hampshire newspaper, especially partial quotes from a speech by a prominent Republican.

As stated earlier in the thread, I think paying attention to what the government does vis a vis civil liberties is more important.

 

[DadsDream]

As stated previously, I think an alarmist news story from a New Hampshire newspaper which only provides snippets of quotes from a lengthy speech is highly misleading.

 

[BullDawg]

Not the content, the worldwide distribution through the Internet as part of an overall strategy to discredit the United States.

Did you happen to read the latest letter to the American public from the president of Iran today? Apparently, he watches Comedy Central and reads DailyKos.

We've been seeing "Death to America" for nearly 30 years now. I still don't see how this is really any different.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

So, what did Newt actually say? What debate about the first amendment does he mean? Way too vague.

Yeah, if speech is used to incite violence, I think it is not protected. The devil is in the details. If someone says "This government has got to go" -- do you want to get into trying to guess what it is they mean?

No real easy answer. I err on the side of less government control and more oversight -- that does make it more difficult to stop terrorists. But I think the greater threat to our liberty is an all-powerful government.

I think it would be possible to use certain speech as a reasonable cause to get a warrant to conduct surveillance, wire-tapping, search, etc. I also think it would be reasonable to begin to monitor anyone who listens to the rantings of such people.

I'm not sure if there needs to be any kind of reevaluation of the First Amendment.