Gingrich Has Second Thoughts On The Right of Free Speech
(Union Leader) 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 GOP’s takeover of Congress in 1994.
Mystech: So tightening campaign finance rules violates YOUR free speech (see below), but restricting private citizen’s free speech on the “intratubes” is a necessary sacrifice. Way to pitch that double standard, Newt!
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.
Gingrich sharply criticized campaign finance laws he charged were reducing free speech and doing little to fight attack advertising. He also said court rulings over separation of church and state have hurt citizens’ ability to express themselves and their faith.
Last night’s event, held at the Radisson Hotel-Center of New Hampshire, honored a Lakes Region newspaper and a former speaker of the House for work in favor of free expression.
The Citizen of Laconia was given the Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment Award, which is named after the longtime President and Publisher of the Union Leader Corporation, owner of New Hampshire’s statewide newspaper.
The Citizen scrutinized the Newfound Area School Board beginning last year over a series of e-mail discussions held before public meetings. It also used the right-to-know law to uncover costly decisions by the town of Tilton this year.
Executive Editor John Howe said the decision to pursue the stories led to at least one advertiser canceling its business with the paper.
“We try to practice what we preach, even if it costs us business,” Howe said. “And it has and it will in the future.
Also honored was Marshall Cobleigh, former House speaker and a longtime aide to former Gov. Meldrim Thomson.
Cobleigh introduced an amendment to the state Constitution defending free speech. He also helped shepherd the state’s 1967 right-to-know law through the Legislature.
Gingrich’s speech focused on the First Amendment, but in an interview beforehand, he also hit upon wide-ranging topics.
- Gingrich said America has “failed” in Iraq over the past three years and urged a new approach to winning the conflict. The U.S. needs to engage Syria and Iran and increase investment to train the Iraqi army and a national police force, he said. “How does a defeat for America make us safer?” Gingrich said. “I would look at an entirely new strategy.” He added: “We have clearly failed in the last three years to achieve the kind of outcome we want.”
- Political parties in Presidential primary states should host events that invite candidates from both parties to discuss issues, said Gingrich, who criticized the sharpness of today’s politics.
- Gingrich said voters unhappy with the war, the response to Hurricane Katrina and pork barrel spending were the main drive behind the GOP’s rejection at the polls. But he argued Republicans would have retained the Senate and just narrowly lost the House if President Bush had announced the departure of embattled Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld before, instead of after, the election.
- Gingrich said he will not decide whether he is running for President until September 2007.
The event last night was sponsored by the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications. The school was founded in 1999 to promote journalism and other forms of communication.
Umm… is there a quote or transcript someplace that shows what he said that could be interpreted as “having second thoughts on the right of free speech” or “restricting private citizens’ free speech on the Internet”? Considering that he was an invited speaker at a free speech award dinner, I’m skeptical he would be calling for restrictions on speech. I’d like to see what he actually said, rather than the interpretation presented by the article writer and a four-word quote which maybe, just maybe, could perhaps possibly conceivably have been taken out of context…
But that’s probably too much work, and would get in the way of righteous indignation.
Be patient, my grumpy Edde-Bear. Maybe YouTube or Google Video will provide soon. 🙂
Haven’t found a transcript yet, but http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2006/11/27/gingrich_calls_for_elimination_of_mccain_feingold_reforms/ has a little more context, maybe:
‘Gingrich also spoke about the need to create different laws for fighting terrorism.
Noting the thwarted London terrorist attacks this summer, Gingrich said there should be a Geneva Convention for such actions that makes those people subject to “a totally different set of rules.”‘
That suggests that his comments regarding terrorism didn’t involve free speech, but were instead discussing matters such as treatment of prisoners.
A Google search only turns up two primary sources: the AP wire report I quoted from above, and the Union-Ledger piece you posted here. There’s also http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061128/CITIZEN_01/111280190 from the Laconia, New Hampshire Citizen Online, which reported on the awards banquet itself and had only this to say about Gingrich: ‘Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the featured speaker for the program, talked about the importance of the First Amendment. Gingrich said he was particularly pleased to speak at the event honoring Loeb, whose work he remembered well. “Freedom occurs one day and one person at a time,” Gingrich told the crowd.’ Note that what was reported was Gingrich’s talk about the *importance* of the First Admendment.
There are a number of outraged posts from commentators like http://www.shortnews.com/shownews.cfm?id=58588&CFID=9681773&CFTOKEN=19649489 (“Newt Gingrich Advocates Changing Free Speech Laws”) and http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/9383 (“Gingrich calls for ‘Net free-speech clampdown to deter terrorists”). Those posts reference the Union-Ledger report as their only source, though, so they’re drawing their conclusions from what I suspect is a very poorly worded (if not outright innacurate) article. Even with that, they say things like:
“Newt’s speech created some concern at the rally. The event was intended to honor those who fought in favor of free speech.” (The Union-Ledger piece mentions nothing about any concern created at the banquet, and it correctly identifies the banquet as a banquet and not a “rally”.)
and
“Newt Gingrich addressed a freedom-of-speech awards dinner in New Hampshire last night and said the problem with the Internet in an age of terrorism is that it allows too damn much freedom of speech.” (The Union-Ledger piece says nothing about Gingrich saying anything remotely like that.)
This line was particularly amusing and depressing in it’s ignorance and/or historical revisionism: “Or maybe we’ll have the encryption debate all over again during President Gingrich’s first term.” That’s a pretty sad comment considering that Gingrich was and is very techno-supportive, and the encryption debate was first held during (and against) the Clinton administration – remember the Clipper Chip?
But again, never let accuracy stand in the way of righteous indignation.
The link to the Boston Globe’s AP report may require a login. Here’s another paper carrying the AP report: http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=83807
Lovely quotes, but I still don’t see them saying anything contrary to the original article written by folks at the meeting.
Did you really just use “That suggests…” and an appeal to “accuracy” in the same argument?
Lovely quotes, but I still don’t see them saying anything contrary to the original article written by folks at the meeting.
You don’t?
Union-Leader (your original source): 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.
AP (also written by folks at the meeting): Noting the thwarted London terrorist attacks this summer, Gingrich said there should be a Geneva Convention for such actions that makes those people subject to “a totally different set of rules.”
Do you think the Geneva Convention is about using the Internet and free speech?
That one sentence in the Union-Leader, containing only a single four-word quote, is the only supporting evidence for the Union-Leader’s headline, your headline, your comment, the other two blog posts, and the accusation in general that Gingrich wants to restrict free speech in the name of fighting terrorism. And that one sentence is flatly contradicted by the AP report.
But unless I’m reading this the same quotes placed in a context created by the AP writer not Gingrich. The only other difference is the inclusion of the word “totally”. In that regard, the other articles do not show Gringrich’s words contradicting the original news article.
As far as comparing the Geneva Convention, it seems to me that Gringrich call for a new Geneva Convention is an attempt to find a work around to the troublesome concept of free speech (and possibly prisoner treatment as well, but I don’t see that mentioned anywhere except in your examination) since they are only used in the context of free speech and terrorism. This would seem to reinforce a hostile or at least unsupportive attitude towards free speech in the context of the terror boogey man, and explain the other writer’s use of the the phrase “Newt’s speech created some concern at the rally. The event was intended to honor those who fought in favor of free speech.â€
To address your original objection though, my choice of the title “Gingrich Has Second Thoughts On The Right of Free Speech” is what I thought to be a not so subtle reference to Gringrich’s dual standard regarding Free Speech. I found it worth noting that Gringrich felt it acceptable to overlook much needed reform of dubious Campaigning issues (a topic near and dear to him) in the name of Free Speech, but to allow Free Speech to be undermined in the face of the specter of The War on Terror.
the same quotes placed in a context created by the AP writer not Gingrich.
True enough. The Union-Leader puts the quote in a free speech context, the AP puts it in a Geneva Convention context; one of these two is wrong, and without a transcript or confirmation with sufficient detail from another independent source, we have no way of knowing which one is accurate (if either is). But based on the (slightly) greater detail in the AP report, my money is on the AP report.
If the Union-Leader’s context is accurate, then so is their headline, your headline and comments, and the other blog posts. If it’s not, then they aren’t.
it seems to me that Gringrich call for a new Geneva Convention is an attempt to find a work around to the troublesome concept of free speech
That makes no sense. The Geneva Conventions have nothing whatsoever to do with free speech. The Geneva Conventions are about the conduct of parties to warfare, and deal with things like treatment of prisoners of war. Parties to the Geneva Conventions could (and, alas, in many cases do) completely restrict the free speech of their citizens without contravening the Conventions. If Gingrich thought that we needed to “reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism” (as the Union-Leader claims) there would be no need whatsoever for him to have “a Geneva Convention for such actions [the London terrorist attacks]” (as the AP report claims).
On the other hand, discussion about a new Geneva Convention to deal with terrorism is very germane, and is a subject that’s had a good deal of discussion already in some circles. The Geneva Conventions are primarily addressed to state actors, i.e. nations fielding armies and so forth. They don’t cover non-state actors such as terrorists very well. There wasn’t much consideration of such things when they were drawn up. Academics in international law are starting to debate how and whether they could be revised to deal with terrorism. So Gingrich talking about Geneva Conventions and terrorism would make perfect sense – but would have nothing to do with free speech. I’m curious how the topic came up at a First Amendment awards banquet; the AP report doesn’t make it clear, other than saying “Gingrich also spoke about …”. But the use of the word “also” indicates to me that his comments about a “different set of laws” were unrelated to his previous topic – free speech.
This would seem to reinforce a hostile or at least unsupportive attitude towards free speech in the context of the terror boogey man, and explain the other writer’s use of the the phrase “Newt’s speech created some concern at the rally. The event was intended to honor those who fought in favor of free speech.â€
That other writer was not at the banquet. His only source for his comments was the Union-Leader report. I mentioned his comments only to show that not only was he commenting based on a report that I believe is inaccurate, but he himself was commenting inaccurately on that same report. “… created some concern” is a complete fabrication; it’s unsupported by the Union-Leader report he used as his source. He apparantly didn’t even read it closely, since he repeatedly calls the event a “rally” instead of an “awards banquet” – a detail that’s not particularly important, but it shows how little attention he’s paid to what he reads and then writes about. This is an example of the kind of gigantic game of telephone that passes for informed discourse in political reporting. If, in fact, it turns out that Gingrich’s comments about a “different set of rules”, when read in the actual context, have nothing whatsoever to do with regulating free speech, everyone will still think “Gingrich wants to control the Intartubes because of terrorism!” thanks to sloppy reporting by the Union-Leader and self-serving but even sloppier parroting of that same report by people who can’t even read what they’re writing about.
my choice of the title “Gingrich Has Second Thoughts On The Right of Free Speech†is what I thought to be a not so subtle reference to Gringrich’s dual standard regarding Free Speech. I found it worth noting that Gringrich felt it acceptable to overlook much needed reform of dubious Campaigning issues (a topic near and dear to him) in the name of Free Speech, but to allow Free Speech to be undermined in the face of the specter of The War on Terror.
You’re not the only one to infer a double-standard on Gingrich’s part from the Union-Leader report. Even libertarians blasted him for that – he appears to be saying that unrestricted campaign spending is good, but unrestricted speech in the war on terror is bad. You of course think that it’s bad/good, the libertarians think that it’s good/good, but either way you can criticize his comments as having a double-standard (libertarians would say that you have a double-standard as well, but that’s a different topic). My point is that I don’t think that Gingrich actually said the second part. The only evidence that he did comes from the Union-Leader article, which offers no support whatsoever in the form of substantial in-context quotes, and is contradicted by the AP article.
But yes, if it turns out that he actually said we should consider restricting speech because of the threat of terrorism, then the catcalls against him are well and truly justified. But given his record on free speech – he opposed the Communications Decency Act, for example – I would be surprised if that’s actually what he said.
The Union-Leader article only makes sense if you are already predisposed to believe the worst things about Gingrich. Otherwise it smells rather strongly of inept reporting at most charitable and outright bias at least charitable.
The New York Sun released some additional quotes from Gingrich using the excerpted quotes in a slightly larger context. http://www.nysun.com/article/44302
Thanks for the pointer; that’s got much better context than the other reports.
I have to say that this report supports the Union-Leader’s interpretation. The key passage is here (emphasis added):
I’d still like to see the full transcript or hear this audio excerpt for myself, but I’ll admit that it does sound like he’s suggesting some kind of restrictions on free speech. If so, I’m as apalled as anyone (moreso I daresay); I’m also disappointed in Newt. For as much as he gets pilloried by the left, he’s actually a very smart person with a pretty strong record of supporting freedom (for a Republican, anyway).
At the very least, I’d like to see what kinds of proposals he has in mind. He probably didn’t mention anything specific in his speech, though. With a very charitable reading of the above passage, I could still see that he might not have been calling for restrictions on free speech. But to do that I’d have to give him so much benefit of the doubt that I’d be falling into bias myself. Something like this shouldn’t take reading between the lines; a public speaker like Gingrich should make it clear and obvious to anyone where he stands. And I’ll admit that, based on the NY Sun report, the clearest answer is that he would be willing to impose some kind of restrictions on free speech in order to stop terrorist recruitment. A laudable goal, but wrong-headed means, and truly deserving of the scorn he’s been getting over it.
The transcript finally got posted on Gingrich’s website: http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=3819
The headline is “What did Newt really say about free speech and terrorism?”. It’s not a transcript of his entire speech, but it does completely cover the part that’s been reported on as “Gingrich wants to curtail free speech” and provides the context for all the excerpts that have been reported on so far.
Here’s what I consider the truly important paragraphs:
He discusses the Geneva Conventions after this, which is where he uses the phrase “different set of rules”. So his quotes about “different set of rules” were in fact about the Geneva Conventions and not free speech… but the preceding three paragraphs were about free speech and were not at all favorable to it.
I completely agree with the first paragraph: the threat of terrorism will lead us to want to snoop on everyone, to shut down websites, and to punish people who advocate terrorism. I partially agree with the second paragraph: we will eventually adopt such “rules of engagement”. I completely disagree with his third paragraph: we don’t need to develop those rules of engagement. The fact that people will want them because of terrorism doesn’t mean we should have them. It does mean we’ll probably get them, but that’s not a good thing; it’s a tragic loss.
That is, unless by “rules of engagement” he means “letting people say what they want, any time, any place, no matter how repugnant we find what they say”… rules of engagement that have served us pretty well so far, and need no further development. But I can’t read that transcript as saying anything of the sort.
Shame, shame on Newt.