Definition of “looking down your nose at someone.”
Union Leader – Gingrich raises alarm at event honoring those who stand up for freedom of speech – Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2006 — While not using the word abolished, you can see where he is headed with this. Exactly how any of this will prevent a terrorist attack is unknown. But abolishing Freedom of Speech will certainly allow the government to turn into a virtual dictatorship. Apparently this is where the Republican Conservative movement has taken us.
MANCHESTER – Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich yesterday said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.
Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a “different set of rules” may be needed to reduce terrorists ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message.
“We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade,” said Gingrich, a Republican who helped engineer the GOPs takeover of Congress in 1994.
Gingrich spoke to about 400 state and local power brokers last night at the annual Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment award dinner, which fetes people and organizations that stand up for freedom of speech.
For starters it just means the end of this and other freedom-loving blogs as is the case in the UAE.
found by Tom Henderson
Spencer, the article doesn’t list any specifics by Newt, but I think he is actually talking about restricting privacy and monitoring internet conversations.
“If all you lefties love free speech so much, why is “hate speech” banned?”
Hate speech isn’t banned.
There are limitations on speech, such as not being able to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, or directing people to commit violent acts. However, I can make hateful comments about anyone I so choose as much as I want to (if I wanted to).
BryanP, I’m with you. I want at least a complete transcript, and preferably a complete recording before I go off the deep end.
But if it’s true, then I’d consider him to be a truly freaking* idiot.
* supply your own F word there.
38 Hate speech isn’t banned.
The target of your invective can just file a civil suit. 🙂
…or just have people say your “career is over” ala Michael Richards
OT: I love how many articles mention his tirade was “caught on tape” when it seems to have been a cell-phone video???
http://www.tmz.com/2006/11/20/kramers-racist-tirade-caught-on-tape/
40,
“caught on tape” is a euphemism. Are you saying that the cell-phone video is fabricated and wasn’t a real-time capture of the event?
Slowly boiled frogs… we get the gubmint we deserve… all that is required for evil to triumph, etc. etc.
#30 – OFTLO, you’re not allowed to run ads mentioning an officeholder by name. They also came close to regulating internet websites. Also, they’ve banned negative ads, or at least any ad that doesn’t have the candidate saying he approves the message.
Comment by Arbo Cide — 11/28/2006 @ 10:35 pm
You know… It would not break my heart if they outlawed paid TV and radio spots and mandated free access be given for mandatory debates.
And not candy ass debates with rules agreed upon by the candidates… but real debates moderated by a nuetral party and open to real questions…
I know…
But I can dream…
#43 – not just questions from the audience and panelists – let the candidates ask each other questions directly. That would be both informative and entertaining.
Well at least one liberal has revealed they want to ban political speech, in this case TV and radio ads. Anyone else? And OFTLO, they have already banned such ads, if you are not a candidate.
Well at least one liberal has revealed they want to ban political speech, in this case TV and radio ads. Anyone else? And OFTLO, they have already banned such ads, if you are not a candidate. Let’s just expand this. We have freedom of religion, but you;re not allowed to spend money on it. We have free press, but you can’t spend too much money on that, and every reporter has to file a detailed statement with the government.
#46 – You are full of shit. Sorry to be so blunt.
I never said I want to ban political ads. I said “it wouldn’t break my heart” if they did. But if you want my opinion, there is a difference bewteen political speech and running an ad that says “Joe Blow is a scumbag so vote for me instead”.
What passes as political discourse in this nation is embarrassing to both sides and those who defend it are vacuous. Further, I cannot understand why anyone feels the rights of the rich are in any danger. It’s the poor and disenfranchised who most need voices and champions in the political arena. I’ve yet to hear of a millionaire having difficulty getting his opinion heard.
You guys redraw congressional districts to marginalize blacks. You put up roadblocks to the ballot that reduce access for the poor. You use bullshit “free speech zones” at rallys so citizens with legitimate grievences to bring to their leaders won’t ever really be in the President’s eyeline. Then you have the gall to say liberals are against free speech because many liberals (like better conservatives do) think billion dollar corporations don’t deserve more access to the electorate than non-profit citizens groups?
I’m not even sure if you understand the law that’s been passed.
“Joe Blow is a scumbag so vote for me instead” had not been banned.
Instead it’s “Joe Blow is a scumbag.” You can’t go and run this ad unless you are his opponent, unless you meet one of various loopholes or you aren’t too close to an election where it might affect people’s votes. You say you want to give more access to nonprofit citizens groups, but then you don’t care when their speech has been banned. And yes I’d call that ad political speech. Why do you think politicians were so eager to ban them? How many incumbents can get knocked off if you aren’t allowed to say anything bad about them? Even in the last cycle only about 5% lost.