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.

more (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Gingrich+defends+free+speech +curbs&articleId=13419de8-bb62-42f4-9b34-64315f906af3)

SPEECH. edited.

And what is your point with this post?




I don't want 6 muslims praying at the airport before a flight that they will all get on together. That is just stupid.

They can do that in their own country.

Or they can save up and buy their own planes.

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.It's a good thing he isn't in power. What a nutjob.I don't want 6 muslims praying at the airport before a flight that they will all get on together.So you, a libertarian, want the government to step in and quash your basic freedoms in the name of public safety? /boggle

It's a good thing he isn't in power. What a nutjob.
Coming from a nutjob, that loses a lot of bite.

So you, a libertarian, want the government to step in and quash your basic freedoms in the name of public safety? /boggle

Boggle all you want.
Somebody owns those airplanes, and they can say if 6 suspicious muslims can or can not get on a plane.

It is you Liberals who always jump to using governmental force to exert your will over others, not libertarians. I did not mention governmental force, but you assume that is the only way to change things to your liking.

It is the first thing you do, smell a wiff of smoke. Break out the guns.
Someone eating cows. Break out the guns.
Someone eating Crisco. Break out the guns.
Fascists.

And flying on somebody else's plane is hardly a basic freedom.

Your interconnects are just weird, man.

Somebody owns those airplanes, and they can say if 6 suspicious muslims can or can not get on a plane.First, the government regulates those companies, so it has a hand in all of this. Second, we're not talking about a private company simply refusing service to a customer. We're talking about the government using its authority to arrest and prosecute people who exercise their freedom of speech.

Read the link. Gingrich outright says that if you give him any "signal" that you're a terrorist, you should have your rights stripped and the burden should be on you to prove that you are entitled to those rights.

As I said, a nutjob. As a libertarian, you should be having a cow at this point. Instead, you turn fascist.

I don't know. If they are just praying, I don't see a problem with it. However, these guys were purposely trying to cause a disruption. Sensitivety training is in order, I think. After all, that's what happens to us white boys from America if someone gets offended by something we do.

I don't agree that we need to curtail free speech. We don't have to like the speech we hear or endorse it but we did found this country on freedoms. One of them being free speech. That's part of the price of freedom. Someone may say or do something you don't particularly like.

If you snicker at the check in girl at the airport and answer "Only a couple of bombs" when asked if you're carrying any dangarous material, I'm really not conserned about how you spent 24 hours in Heathrow being interrogated even if you claim it was said in jest.

I don't want 6 muslims praying at the airport before a flight that they will all get on together.

That would fall under freedom of religion. My point is they are just chipping away at every possible angle.

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN--"Those who are willing to give up some essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

My chances of being killed by a terrorist: .0000001%

y chances of being killed by bad dumplings: .1%

y chances of being killed by a taxi driver: 10%

y chances of being killed by Beijing's pollution: 50%.

And I don't want to hear that my chances of being killed by a terrorist are so low thanks to the hard-pumping machismo of the Bush administration. With all due respect to the unfortunate people who have been victims of terrorism, they are vanishingly low for any individual.

That would fall under freedom of religion. My point is they are just chipping away at every possible angle.

The government has to respect the 'freedom of religion'.

Individuals do NOT have to. Legally, morally, or logically.

And I do not.

And groups of individuals should not have to, either, but of course we know that there are laws in place to force them to. Unethical laws, of course.

It is funny that you are on the side of someone who wants to use the government to regulate what you inhale and what you eat and how you behave. And feels that you are less deserving of owning a gun than a criminal; because you might actually use it on a criminal.

You both seem to be saying that you have a fundamental right to ride on somebody else's airplane, someone elses property, when it is against their will or choice. And that everyone has a Constitutional Right(a document written in the 18th century, I might add) to ride in an airplane.

I dunno about free speech, but I think those six people probably should have gotten the crap beat out of them by the families who lost loved ones during Sept. 11th. Sounds to me like they were probably punks who wanted (and got) a lot of media exposure by being a$$es.

I'm rather conflicted by Gingrich's statements because I'm not 100% sure of the point he's trying to make. If he's saying that print media and live media should be censored for content, well I don't agree with that. However, if he's saying that public demonstrations which could be a safety hazard to the general public should be tightly controlled, well I can agree with that on a fundamental level.

I agree with Gingrich's statement of "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."

The six Muslims in question did not only pray in the airport, they decided to emulate the Sept. 11th terrorists by sitting in the same exact seats. To me it sounds a lot like a premeditated scare tactic, not just a demonstration of freedom of speech.

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN--"Those who are willing to give up some essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Keyword "Essential"

if you think 6 people acting like terrorists at an airport, is an essential liberty, then yea its ****ed up,

if you dont, then you probably hope they get thrown in jail

The government has to respect the 'freedom of religion'.

Individuals do NOT have to. Legally, morally, or logically.

You both seem to be saying that you have a fundamental right to ride on somebody else's airplane, someone elses property, when it is against their will or choice.

So you think it is legally, morally, and logically correct for corporations to deny contracted services to customers based on religious or racial bigotry?

I'm not familiar with the airport case at all by the way. Don't drag me down into the detail please.

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.
From what I've read they sat alone in different parts of the plane. Nothing I've seen indicates that they sat in exactly the same seats -- has anyone seen a source that says otherwise (other than Gingrich)? If so, link it.

So you think it is legally, morally, and logically correct for corporations to deny contracted services to customers based on religious or racial bigotry?

Do you think that groups of people should be FORCED into contracts with those they do not want to contract with?

Now I word that just a little bit differently, for rhetorical, ideological, and logical purposes of course.

Because corporations do not, and should not have any rights at all.

And rhetorically, ideologically, and logically individuals within a corporations, people who work for it, or run it, or own it should be liable and responsible individually for what they do within that corporation. But we know that they do not, that is one of the reasons why corporations are formed, to protect individuals from corporate liability. And I don't think that it should.

But then again, do you think that the government should force corporations into contracts with those which they do not want to contract with?

I ran a business for several years, I put alarm and security systems into people's homes and businesses. Does the government have the authority to force ME to do business, to provide a service, forge a contract with someone who I don't want business from, who I don't want to work for or with; um say a criminal, or a traitor, or the brother in law of my competitor? Or even just a known asshole in the business community.

Should the government have the power to force and coerce me to work for another person, like that?

Do you think that groups of people should be FORCED into contracts with those they do not want to contract with?
Doesn't the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already do this?

However, if he's saying that public demonstrations which could be a safety hazard to the general public should be tightly controlled, well I can agree with that on a fundamental level.

I agree with Gingrich's statement of "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."Yep, let's suppress any form of public demonstration that's inconvenient or uncomfortable for the majority. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>The six Muslims in question did not only pray in the airport, they decided to emulate the Sept. 11th terrorists by sitting in the same exact seats. To me it sounds a lot like a premeditated scare tactic, not just a demonstration of freedom of speech.Were they carrying weapons? Were they threatening anyone with violence? You're confusing the safety of the public with its comfort.

Do you think that groups of people should be FORCED into contracts with those they do not want to contract with?Under certain circumstances, yes, they should and they are. The government needs to step in to make sure that bigots aren't denying people of basic services.

For example, California's Fair Employment and Housing Act forces private parties to contract with people they don't like, if the reason they don't like them is a prohibited ground (race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or disability).

I don't think there's a rule for alarm companies, because it's not a critical service and besides, there's so much competition, if you refuse to service your neighborhood Muslim, three other companies will gladly take the contract.

/smile

No I never discriminated against people because of culture, religion, or race. Money is green, for the most part, and is color blind.

I did discriminate against lawyers though, I always charged them an extra 20 to 25%. It was because of them that I had to come up with 3K a year for E&O insurance. Seemed only fair that I pass that cost to them, instead of to my other customers.

Asshole business men/women? I just pulled my **** out, and told them to find someone else to work with. I had this one white racist woman, I do regret not pulling my stuff out of her store, should have.

I also had this one customer, who was black, he owned rental properties. He would never rent to black people because he said they always broke his stuff. He would only rent to Asians, or sometimes whites. I did not know what to do with that kind of racism at the time, still don't really.

He would never rent to black people because he said they always broke his stuff. He would only rent to Asians, or sometimes whites. I did not know what to do with that kind of racism at the time, still don't really.It's the same kind of racism that prompts a white landlord not to rent to blacks. I never did understand the concept of immunity for same-race bigotry. (See Michael Richards thread.) Blacks can hate blacks just as whites can hate blacks.

Ok, I'm more and more on Newt's side now.

This Wall Street Journal opinion article by Debra Burlingame has a few more details on exactly what the Muslims in question were doing.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009348

IMO these so called "religious leaders" got exactly what they deserved, and I still hold my "get the crap beat out of them" opinion. And as is very commonplace now days in the so-called "news media," they failed to report the little details of exactly how the Muslim Imans acted when they boarded the plane.

Go read the details of their actions and see if it was still just a demonstration of free speech.

It's the same kind of racism that prompts a white landlord not to rent to blacks. I never did understand the concept of immunity for same-race bigotry. (See Michael Richards thread.) Blacks can hate blacks just as whites can hate blacks.

Holy cow, I agree with you on something. I think that means one of us is going to Hell.

Ok, I'm more and more on Newt's side now.

This Wall Street Journal opinion article by Debra Burlingame has a few more details on exactly what the Muslims in question were doing.

IMO these so called "religious leaders" got exactly what they deserved, and I still hold my "get the crap beat out of them" opinion. And as is very commonplace now days in the so-called "news media," they failed to report the little details of exactly how the Muslim Imans acted when they boarded the plane.

So how would you like the law changed? Would you want the immans arrested for praising their god loudly in an airport waiting room? Would you want the immans arrested for sitting in the wrong seats? Would you want the immans arrested for being suspicious muslim men?

If you look at what happened, from that media report, it appears that the men were boisterous in the waiting area. That is not a criminal offence. The Immans then undertook a series of actions on board the plane which caused concern for the cabin crew and led to the securing of the plane. That seems reasonable. In other words, existing laws and procedures dealth with the events and the Immans will probably lose their legal challenge. There is no need to get angry about it and let Newt Gingrich remove civil liberties citing the 'failure' of current law.

Nah, I don't think the first amendment needs a change but Gingrich's statements on what he'd do to the first amendment is a bit hazy in that initial article anyway. I agree with him on the fact that I don't think what the Muslims did should be considered protected speech, nor do I think the airlines or Air Marshals would be wrong if they requested that those demonstrators be put on separate planes or ejected all together. I think what they did is very similar to the "Fire in a crowded movie theater" law, and should've been handled as such.

If you snicker at the check in girl at the airport and answer "Only a couple of bombs" when asked if you're carrying any dangarous material, I'm really not conserned about how you spent 24 hours in Heathrow being interrogated even if you claim it was said in jest.

That falls under the "Yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" exemption.

Praying, even to Allah, doesn't.

I dunno about free speech, but I think those six people probably should have gotten the crap beat out of them by the families who lost loved ones during Sept. 11th. Sounds to me like they were probably punks who wanted (and got) a lot of media exposure by being a$$es.

I'm rather conflicted by Gingrich's statements because I'm not 100% sure of the point he's trying to make. If he's saying that print media and live media should be censored for content, well I don't agree with that. However, if he's saying that public demonstrations which could be a safety hazard to the general public should be tightly controlled, well I can agree with that on a fundamental level.

Do not forget that the 1st amendment not only assures free speech, but protects the right of the people to peaceably assemble as well.

Ok, I'm more and more on Newt's side now.

This Wall Street Journal opinion article by Debra Burlingame has a few more details on exactly what the Muslims in question were doing.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009348

IMO these so called "religious leaders" got exactly what they deserved, and I still hold my "get the crap beat out of them" opinion. And as is very commonplace now days in the so-called "news media," they failed to report the little details of exactly how the Muslim Imans acted when they boarded the plane.

Go read the details of their actions and see if it was still just a demonstration of free speech.


Having read it, I find sufficient cause in their actions to have them removed, yes.

But their praying and use of Allahu Akbar, is not one of them.

I imagine that had these men been Christian and had been shouting Lord Jesus, while praying, Newt Gingrich would be up in arms about secular America's war on Christianity or some ****.

And I can understand and agree that it'd be a case of overkill and racial profiling if the Muslims were detained only because they were praying or chanting Allahu Akbar, and I think that's the spin that the media was trying to put on it - "Muslims harassed because of praying." It's all the other crap they pulled that makes me think it jumps right out of the 1st amendment into criminal mischief areas.

And I can understand and agree that it'd be a case of overkill and racial profiling if the Muslims were detained only because they were praying or chanting Allahu Akbar, and I think that's the spin that the media was trying to put on it - "Muslims harassed because of praying." It's all the other crap they pulled that makes me think it jumps right out of the 1st amendment into criminal mischief areas.

Let the courts decide the legal issues and the media write their stories. I expect that existing laws and airport security will handle this situation if politicians stop stirring up trouble.

As for biased media reporting, well why didn't the article you quoted just stick to the actual security issues on the plane which delayed the flight? All the stuff about prayers and Allah Akbar seems pretty irrelevant and only heightens Islamophobia.

Doesn't the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already do this?

Is that Act Constitutional? Is the real question.

Or what do you think about the notion of the Government forcing people to work for other people?

That is more important to me, do you think that it is cool for the Government to force people to work for other people against their will? Is that cool with you, do you like that?

Or what do you think about the notion of the Government forcing people to work for other people?
It doesn't force anyone to work for anyone. It prevents businesses from denying service to people based upon their race, sex, or religion.

If I own a business I work for my customers.

I provide them with a service in exchange for money.

Who else I am working for, unless I am working for my clients and customers?


You, perhaps? NO!



Are you saying that I must work for somebody against my will? Well, actually the laws says I must, of course. But my question to you is, do you like that?

Are you saying that people should not be allowed to choose who they work for and who they do not work for?

Let us say, that you are a homeowner now.
You have a small first time buyer home.
But you just got a great new job.
And you buy a new home.
And you think to yourself, I want to keep my old home.
But you want to rent it out, help a renter out, provide them with a home for cheap.

Do you think the government should force you to rent out your home, your property, to someone that you don't want to rent YOUR home to?

Do you like the idea of the government forcing you, at the point of a gun, to rent your home, that you spent tens of thousands, or a hundred, of dollars on, to somebody that you don't like?


Let me put it a different way.
You know me. You know you don't like me. You don't like anything about me. Should I have the right to use the Government to force YOU to service me, or to force you to rent me your home? Should the Government force you to rent your home to me, to provide me with a service, against your will?

Are you saying that I must work for somebody against my will? Well, actually the laws says I must, of course. But my question to you is, do you like that?
The law doesn't really say that. In fact, the only way the law would really come into play would be if you were to show a persistent pattern of refusing service to a particular race, sex, or religion. Or, of course, if you told a customer that you were refusing service because of their race, sex, or religion.

You know me. You know you don't like me. You don't like anything about me. Should I have the right to use the Government to force YOU to service me, or to force you to rent me your home? Should the Government force you to rent your home to me, to provide me with a service, against your will?
Again, you can refuse service to specific people based upon their individual merits (or lack of them).

And for the record, I don't dislike you or any of the other posters here. I'll concede that I find many of your views on things somewhat bizarre (or even downright repugnant) but you have a twisted sense of humor and that's a hell of a redeeming quality in my book.

Let the courts decide the legal issues and the media write their stories. I expect that existing laws and airport security will handle this situation if politicians stop stirring up trouble.

As for biased media reporting, well why didn't the article you quoted just stick to the actual security issues on the plane which delayed the flight? All the stuff about prayers and Allah Akbar seems pretty irrelevant and only heightens Islamophobia.
Well the article I posted specifically said that it was an opinion (editorial) posting, not a supposedly unbiased factual article.

That falls under the "Yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" exemption.

Praying, even to Allah, doesn't.

Even praying CAN be done in a "yelling fire"-kinda way.

If I own a business I work for my customers.

I provide them with a service in exchange for money.

Who else I am working for, unless I am working for my clients and customers?


You, perhaps? NO!



Are you saying that I must work for somebody against my will? Well, actually the laws says I must, of course. But my question to you is, do you like that?

Are you saying that people should not be allowed to choose who they work for and who they do not work for?

Let us say, that you are a homeowner now.
You have a small first time buyer home.
But you just got a great new job.
And you buy a new home.
And you think to yourself, I want to keep my old home.
But you want to rent it out, help a renter out, provide them with a home for cheap.

Do you think the government should force you to rent out your home, your property, to someone that you don't want to rent YOUR home to?

Do you like the idea of the government forcing you, at the point of a gun, to rent your home, that you spent tens of thousands, or a hundred, of dollars on, to somebody that you don't like?


Let me put it a different way.
You know me. You know you don't like me. You don't like anything about me. Should I have the right to use the Government to force YOU to service me, or to force you to rent me your home? Should the Government force you to rent your home to me, to provide me with a service, against your will?

Once you decide that you are going to use rent out your house, while living elsewhere, it become a business, not your home, and as such, if you wish to do business, there are certain regulations you must follow.

While I agree that I think the federal civil rights act has been broadened unconstitutionally to infringe on state rights...do you honestly believe that were a court to so rule, every state in the union (except Mississippi, perhaps) would fail to enact a state civil rights law?

I think the law is right and good and just...but should be enacted on the state level, not the federal level, except for legitimate interstate commerce industries (such as already fall squarely under federal jurisdiction...instrate trucking, railroads, airlines, and companies which deal with the federal government).

It is still your home, your house, and your property.

Like it or not, call it what you will.



And I don't think it is a state's rights issue.

It is the state versus the individual issue.

Even praying CAN be done in a "yelling fire"-kinda way.

I wouldn't disagree...except, as I mentioned, if the situation had been a bunch of right wing Christians yelling "Praise Jesus!", the christians would go insane in this country about their mythical paranoid fantasies that the non-christian minorities here are somehow enacting a war on christianity.

I don't want no Jesus freaks next to me on a plane either.

It is still your home, your house, and your property.

Like it or not, call it what you will.



And I don't think it is a state's rights issue.

It is the state versus the individual issue.

No, its not, because we've long required the permission of the state to run a business which employs people.

For the most part, truly small businesses are immune to most equal opportunity laws, due to their size and the difficulties a small business can have trying to meet them. Once you reach size enough to be hit by the laws, you owe the community at large certain behavior, amongst them being that you will conduct your business fairly and ethically.

If you the sole proprietor of a business and employ only yourself...you can pretty much do whatever the **** you want, so long as you pay your taxes. You have almost as much leeway as an owner who employs five people. I don't think federal EO laws kick in until your employee base is 15+

I don't want no Jesus freaks next to me on a plane either.

heh, if I had my way I wouldn't have anyone else on the plane with me, except a bevy of smoking hot strippers with loose morals...we can't always get what we want.