When we first covered this, people accused us of twisting Newt’s words. Now Newt is defending his original statements by attacking the Bill of Rights as well. In the linked article he basically says you are guilty until proven innocent, especially if you are accused of being a terrorist.

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.

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.

Any signal? Where does that leave your rights?



  1. Mike says:

    “I don’t know where you live, but American school kids are usually required to understand the Constitution before they are allowed to graduate.”

    That’s probably being a bit optimistic… I’m just happy if they can make the correct change for me.

  2. SportySpectator says:

    Gingrich is an ass.

  3. RDaneelOlivaw says:

    “The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.”

    -Benjamin Franklin

  4. Greg Allen says:

    If we’re going to restrict speech in America then, for-the-love-of-all-that’s-good, let’s start with that blowhole Newt Gingrich.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 6358 access attempts in the last 7 days.