Gingrich says NBC should have allowed clapping: ‘Media doesn’t control free speech’

I guess Newtie's not ready for prime time afterall. Without the crowd's reactions to his racist dog whistles he can't perform.

because Presidential Debates are not a broadcast of the Jerry Springer Show. This is serious stuff. This is about learning what the candidates can do better than President Obama, not tossing red meat into a crowd with foaming lips.

Newt is NOT ready for prime time. But it's clear he's ready to be a guess on the Springer show - or one like it.

that he is rdy for Springer, he needs something far more softcore that will enable his views while at the same time not challenging them with things called "facts" like the following shows.
Fox and Friends
The O'Reilly Factor
Your World with Neil Cavuto
Hannity

My bad.

The reason to avoid clapping and demonstrations is to give the candidates more time to talk. Instead, we'll get to see Newt's insane followers bellow and screech.

Without his screaming, bloodthirsty harpies he doesn't look so good, does he...

Asshole needs his honking braying fellow-assholes to back him up. Whining about it when they're kept silent - so the debate can assume a modicum of respect.

Newt can't take it when the arena doesn't have the ambiance of a pro wrestling match!

Boo-hoo Newtie.


horseshoecrab

on his site "Radio Free Oz": In Which Mitt Rises From The Ashes

I didn't watch the debate, but I can just imagine it from how he puts it to (often hilarious) words

I love Bergman's take on Newt's dissatisfaction with the civilized format: "...because he doesn't have a blood sport audience..."

Perfect!

Thanks kentauros. Good to hear Bergman's take! Bookmarking Radio Free Oz right now.


horseshoecrab

I actually forgot I had the link and was going through my "several hundred open tabs" () and found it, liking what I heard. I'll have to see what he said today. Might be worth subscribing to his podcasts, too

GOVERNMENTS cannot abridge Free Speech.
Jerk, but he's making the point for his sycophants.

. . . . All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech. Under the antidistortion rationale, Congress could also ban political speech of media corporations. Although currently exempt from §441b, they accumulate wealth with the help of their corporate form, may have aggregations of wealth, and may express views “hav little or no correlation to the public’s support” for those views. Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment , and there is no support for the view that the Amendment’s original meaning would permit suppressing media corporations’ political speech. Austin interferes with the “open marketplace” of ideas protected by the First Amendment . New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres , 552 U. S. 196 . Its censorship is vast in its reach, suppressing the speech of both for-profit and nonprofit, both small and large, corporations. Pp. 32–40.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html

This is a quote from the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.

The media has the right to deprive others of free speech. It is a private company.

The First Amendment only requires the government to respect your right to free speech, Mr. Gingrich. That is elementary to an understanding of our Constitution. If you don't know that, Mr. Gingrich, you have no business running for president. The job is way over your head.

nope

Although the Roman forum audiences Newt likes clearly stoke his ego, they do another thing, as Joan Walsh just pointed out:

I missed the rowdy GOP audience in this debate. Everyone who watches plays the popular guessing game, “What cruelty will provoke lusty boos or cheers this time around?” Will they applaud the death penalty, people dying without medical care, the idea that the unemployed deserve their fate or the dressing down of the only black moderator? Will they boo gay soldiers or a moderator’s timid question about Gingrich’s second adultery-driven divorce? Gingrich wasn’t the only one disappointed NBC silenced the crowd.

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/24/mitt_pounces_newt_pouts_two_rich_guys_squabble/

That is, they show the whole world how evil, cruel and bloodthirsty the GOPer base really is.

I watched the debate, and it was just, flat.

Its much more enjoyable to hear what unpossibly stupid soundbytes are resonating with the troglodytes picked to sit in the audience.

immediate adoration.

typical lizard.

...when the airship Gingrich eventually blows!
This will be fun to watch - and it's coming. No way his Newtness makes it through to Election Day without blowing himself up!

Yeah, Florida can be a really bizarre state, but at least they didn't think to locate the "Univ. of South Florida" in the most Northern city in the state...

Or does he want to get the clap?

Some people say.....

After he took all that time to pack the audience with his cheerleaders, sycophants, and psychopaths, he couldn't get it up...or...ah...I mean THEM up. (blush)

If newtie doesn't like it, he's free to chose another network to debate on.

Why is he bashing innocent corporate people?

really. why not act as if it's a fucking rock concert or baseball game instead of the future of the nation?

or not. And the crowd can choose to participate or not. What is not free about that?

Their game and their rules.

viewing audience; watching on television.

Air time is limited, studio controlled applause and/or boos only serves to manipulate and/or hinder the "free speech" or transfer of information between the candidates and the millions of Americans in the viewing audience.

Thanks for the thread, brooklynite.

He uses the audience for cover to say demeaning mean things with back up.

and BOOOOOED every time he opened his mouth?

free speech and all that, you know

NBC can ban any speech it wants, since it is a corporation. Stupid, ignorant man.

nt

or did you know about it prior, like with most debates, they discourage disruption because of the time factor involved with debates.

Neut, as usual, is making an issue out of a non issue because he's that fucking desperate.

To put it in Scalia-speak: well, if you dont' like it, you don't have to run for president--don't attend the debates, jerk.

(Stolen from Tom Tomorrow)

Applause is free speech, protest is not, I guess.

What's the term for that, psychologically speaking?

--------------------

very well put.

Well sure, if its rules interfere with his pleasure.

This proves it.

Though the red-shirted senior citizen teabaggers often couldn't control their outrage towards the Democratic incumbent because he voted for HCR.

only limits the governments ability to limit freespeech it doesnt say squat about tv stations or newspapers not being allowed to censor what they want.

Racist, homophobic, misogynist, assholes who hate the sick.

I'd rather know the truth than keep on pretending they're civil.

I thought Newtie was saying the clap should be allowed. My mistake.