See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Video: Keith Olbermann blasts Newt Gingrich's 'sinister vision' (the internet censorship)
Source:
RAW STORY
URL Source: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/V ... lasts_Newt_Gingrichs_1130.html
Published: Dec 1, 2006
Author: David Edwards and Mike Sheehan
Post Date: 2006-12-01 05:43:40 by Zipporah
Keywords: None
Views: 246
Comments: 24
In his latest "Special Comment" on MSNBC's Countdown, Keith Olbermann criticizes former House Speaker and potential '08 presidential contender Newt Gingrich's recent speech outlining his vision for America and the world--one that has ominous overtones of restrictions on freedom of speech and, as Olbermann describes it, amounts to fearmongering by "a cynical mind." Olbermann says of Gingrich, "He offered the time-tested excuse trotted out by our demagogues since even before the Republic was founded: widespread death, of Americans, in America, possibly at the hands of Americans. But updated, now, to include terrorists using the Internet for recruitment. End result — 'losing a city.' "The colonial English defended their repression with words like these. And so did the slave states. And so did the policemen who shot strikers. ... And so did those who interned Japanese-Americans. And so did those behind the Red Scare..." A full transcript follows the video. Here, as promised, a special comment about free speech, failed speakers and the delusion of grandeur. "This is a serious long-term war," the man at the podium cried, "and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country." Some in the audience must have thought they were hearing an arsonist give the keynote address at a convention of firefighters. This was the annual Loeb First Amendment Dinner in Manchester, N.H. — a public cherishing of freedom of speech — in the state with the two-fisted motto "Live Free Or Die." And the arsonist at the microphone, the former speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, was insisting that we must attach an “on-off button” to free speech. He offered the time-tested excuse trotted out by our demagogues since even before the Republic was founded: widespread death, of Americans, in America, possibly at the hands of Americans. But updated, now, to include terrorists using the Internet for recruitment. End result — “losing a city.” The colonial English defended their repression with words like these. And so did the slave states. And so did the policemen who shot strikers. And so did Lindbergh’s America First crowd. And so did those who interned Japanese-Americans. And so did those behind the Red Scare. And so did Nixon’s plumbers. The genuine proportion of the threat is always irrelevant. The fear the threat is exploited to create becomes the only reality. “We will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find,” Mr. Gingrich continued about terrorists, formerly communists, formerly hippies, formerly Fifth Columnists, formerly anarchists, formerly Redcoats, “to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech.” Mr. Gingrich, the British “broke up our capacity to use free speech” in the 1770s. The pro-slavery leaders “broke up our capacity to use free speech” in the 1850s. The FBI and CIA “broke up our capacity to use free speech” in the 1960s. It is in those groups where you would have found your kindred spirits, Mr. Gingrich. Those who had no faith in freedom, no faith in this country, and, ultimately, no faith even in the strength of their own ideas, to stand up on their own legs without having the playing field tilted entirely to their benefit. “It will lead us to learn,” Gingrich continued, “how to close down every Web site that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear and biological weapons.” That we have always had “a very severe approach” to these people is insufficient for Mr. Gingrich’s ends. He wants to somehow ban the idea. Even though everyone who has ever protested a movie or a piece of music or a book has learned the same lesson: Try to suppress it, and you only validate it. Make it illegal, and you make it the subject of curiosity. Say it cannot be said, and it will instead be screamed. And on top of the thundering danger in his eagerness to sell out freedom of speech, there is a sadder sound, still — the tinny crash of a garbage can lid on a sidewalk. Whatever dreams of Internet censorship float like a miasma in Mr. Gingrich’s personal swamp, whatever hopes he has of an Iron Firewall, the simple fact is, technically they won’t work. As of tomorrow they will have been defeated by a free computer download. Mere hours after Gingrich’s speech in New Hampshire, the University of Toronto announced it had come up with a program called Psiphon to liberate those in countries in which the Internet is regulated. Places like China and Iran, where political ideas are so barren, and political leaders so desperate that they put up computer firewalls to keep thought and freedom out. The Psiphon device is a relay of sorts that can surreptitiously link a computer user in an imprisoned country to another in a free one. The Chinese think the wall works, yet the ideas — good ideas, bad ideas, indifferent ideas — pass through anyway. The same way the Soviet bloc was defeated by the images of Western material bounty. If your hopes of thought control can be defeated, Mr. Gingrich, merely by one computer whiz staying up an extra half hour and devising a new “firewall hop,” what is all this apocalyptic hyperbole for? “I further think,” you said in Manchester, “we should propose a Geneva convention for fighting terrorism, which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules, that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism …” Well, Mr. Gingrich, what is more “massively destructive” than trying to get us to give you our freedom? And what is someone seeking to hamstring the First Amendment doing, if not “fighting outside the rules of law”? And what is the suppression of knowledge and freedom, if not “barbarism”? The explanation, of course, is in one last quote from Mr. Gingrich from New Hampshire and another from last week. “I want to suggest to you,” he said about these Internet restrictions, “that we right now should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren’t for the scale of the threat.” And who should those “impaneled” people be? Funny I should ask, isn’t it, Mr. Gingrich? “I am not ‘running’ for president,” you told a reporter from Fortune Magazine. “I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen.” Newt Gingrich sees in terrorism, not something to be exterminated, but something to be exploited. It’s his golden opportunity, isn’t it? “Rallying a nation,” you might say, “to hysteria, to sweep us up into the White House with powers that will make martial law seem like anarchy.” That’s from the original version of the movie “The Manchurian Candidate” — the chilling words of Angela Lansbury’s character, as she first promises to sell her country to the Chinese and Russians, then reveals she’ll double-cross them and keep all the power herself, waving the flag every time she subjugates another freedom. Within the frame of our experience as a free and freely argumentative people, it is almost impossible to conceive that there are those among us who might approach the kind of animal wildness of fiction like that — those who would willingly transform our beloved country into something false and terrible. Who among us can look to our own histories, or those of our ancestors who struggled to get here, or who struggled to get freedom after they were forced here, and not tear up when we read Frederick Douglass’s words from a century and a half ago?: “Freedom must take the day.” And who among us can look to our collective history and not see its turning points — like the Civil War, like Watergate, like the Revolution itself — in which the right idea defeated the wrong idea on the battlefield that is the marketplace of ideas? But apparently there are some of us who cannot see that the only future for America is one that cherishes the freedoms won in the past, one in which we vanquish bad ideas with better ones, and in which we fight for liberty by having more liberty, not less. “I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen.” What a dark place your world must be, Mr. Gingrich, where the way to save America is to destroy America. I will awaken every day of my life thankful I am not with you in that dark place. And I will awaken every day of my life thankful that you are entitled to tell me about it. And that you are entitled to show me what an evil idea it represents and what a cynical mind. And that you are entitled to do all that, thanks to the very freedoms you seek to suffocate.
#
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Zipporah, all (#0)
This Iraqi ass kicking we're receiving is causing a neocon meltdown. These next two years are going to be ugly. I think a military coup might be our only hope, but then I think about the standard of men who grace our military and that doesn't sit well either.
I wonder if this is a suspect place ??? Fuck Newt Gingrich ... another Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, Prager, Israeli- Fascist, Bush butt sucking parasite ... I put Prager in there just for Robin's sister !
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined." Patrick Henry
This inclusion is so idiotic, Olberman is either a tool or doesn't write his own stuff.
It's a sop thrown out in deference to the conventional mythology, you know: The Greatest Generation and all that. This is fairly radical stuff for MSM material. He had to throw them a couple of bones, or his attack on Gingrich wouldn't fly.
Give 'til it hurts. Gun Owners of America
But it doesn't make any sense and its the only example he gives where he names a name save the throwaway Nixon's plumbers, an American hero and patriot, Charles Lindbergh. There is a myth of free political speech in this country that ties it to the Bill of Rights yet the first massive restriction was as early at 1798. Free political speech is a tradition practiced by people, not a right. Ignore the tradition, the right is without meaning. Gingrich, to his credit, is being forthright about his belief, which is far different than the Commie Left which enforces totalitarian speech codes. It's simply two bands of Marxists arguing with each other.
With respect, John, when a man of power and influence enlists his right to speak in order to attempt to restrict mine, traditional, constitutional or statutory, my first impulse is to stuff my boot up his ass.
Give 'til it hurts. Gun Owners of America
Frankly, Gingrich is just offering another distraction for the 'security' folks to not deal with the concept of deporting rabble rousers. We actually have left-libertarians who think you can have free speech and invite 20 million low class foreigners in as citizens and have a stable country. It's the classic you can't have an Empire Abroad and a Republic at Home. Obie wants us to believe, just for the moment, that yes we can.
Maybe I'm dense, but who do you mean by the 'security' folks? Obie wants us to believe, just for the moment, that yes we can. Perhaps he even believes that himself.
Give 'til it hurts. Gun Owners of America
Keith Olbermann strikes me as a classic FDR mold Democrat and the Democrats hated the political isolationist Charles Lindbergh the way say Republicans and Democrats hate Pat Buchanan these days (though I don't want to compare the two men that much - apples and oranges).
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Obie believes whatever he is told to believe. The 'security' folks are left and right nationalists who take as a matter of fact that we are in perpetual war. As a rule, they consume the Greatest Generation crap.
He is one of those New Republic liberals from the 1930s who talked a good game, but were in fact just tools of a fascist regime.
Olbermann is that old? I don't think so.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Just curious, has anyone, anyone at all on the Faux Knoos Channel critized Newt's comments? It's all "Diebolds" fault...
okay fine, he is 'like' one of those New Republic liberals..etc
No, but they have us right where they want us when the debate is Faux News or MSNBC. If only they could legislate that all cable systems put ESPN in between the two, and maybe a porn-pay-per-view channel, their domination would be complete.
He may well be but does not have to be to dislike Charles Lindbergh. Charles Lindbergh was pretty much demonized by the FDR administration and even people who hold no political allegiance/affiliation may have been influenced by FDR's animosity. Just open any American history text book and you will read a negative evaluation of Charles Lindbergh and the 'America First' movement.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I know that you will think me naive, but I think that the general fear of what BC & Co. are creating is real. Everyone with a brain can see that we are spawning the first of a generation of Caesars who would gladly put us and our liberites on a roasting spit just to munch on for a snack. Believe me, Olbie and our congresscritters know that they too can be told to STFU and be survielled and spied upon with just as much impunity on the part of gov't spooks as the rest of us. They would be fine fools if this did not give them pause.
Give 'til it hurts. Gun Owners of America
at the least ;)
I don't think you are naive at all. We just have different tactical approaches. Like right now, I am being a contrarian a-hole, but there is a purpose. This mess we are in didn't start in Florida 2000, or 1992, or in 1932 or 1912, or 1865, but probably in 1789 when the Articles were overturned and a central government in DC was ordained, or perhaps in 1776 when a regional conflict became a nationalist cause--we are born of original sin. The goal is to replace an elite, which means replacing everybody, reworking everyt myth etc...
I like it when you be a contrarian a-hole. But I think that you are far beyond speaking about tactical approaches, or even strategic ones for that matter. What do you get when you peel back all the layers of an onion?
Give 'til it hurts. Gun Owners of America
That irritated me too.
It's clear he is there to insure no Old Right coalition. Hope all is well on your end.
Thanks, yes. BTW do you know of any good Lindbergh biographies? I was eyeing one in the bookstore the other day but would like to get one that's honest.
I can't say I know of any written from our perspective, though I am sure some exist. I can recommend Bill Kauffman's (I am a huge fan)America First!.
#2. To: Zipporah (#0)
"This is a serious long-term war," the man at the podium cried, "and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country."
#3. To: Zipporah (#0)
And so did Lindbergh’s America First crowd.
#4. To: JohnGalt (#3)
#5. To: randge (#4)
(Edited)
#6. To: JohnGalt (#5)
Gingrich, to his credit, is being forthright about his belief
#7. To: randge (#6)
#8. To: JohnGalt (#7)
#9. To: JohnGalt, randge (#5)
To: randge But it doesn't make any sense and its the only example he gives where he names a name save the throwaway Nixon's plumbers, an American hero and patriot, Charles Lindbergh.
#10. To: randge (#8)
(Edited)
#11. To: Destro (#9)
#12. To: JohnGalt (#11)
He is one of those New Republic liberals from the 1930s who talked a good game, but were in fact just tools of a fascist regime.
#13. To: JohnGalt (#10)
#14. To: Destro (#12)
#15. To: Brian S (#13)
#16. To: JohnGalt (#14)
okay fine, he is 'like' one of those New Republic liberals..etc
#17. To: JohnGalt (#10)
(Edited)
#18. To: randge (#6)
my first impulse is to stuff my boot up his ass.
#19. To: randge (#17)
(Edited)
#20. To: JohnGalt (#19)
We just have different tactical approaches . . . The goal is to replace an elite, which means replacing everybody, reworking everyt myth etc...
#21. To: JohnGalt (#3)
#22. To: alpowolf (#21)
(Edited)
#23. To: JohnGalt (#22)
#24. To: alpowolf (#23)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest