Gingrich: We must restrict free speech online to stop terrorists from destroying an American city
Gingrich raises alarm at event honoring those who stand up for freedom of speech
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.
Yes, 9.11 changed everything, didn’t it? Included among those changes is the one-time view that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are sacrosanct. Now former DUMB@$$ AWARD wiener and former House Majority Leader Newt Gingrich is talking about proscribing free speech rights under certain circumstances. Yes, you should be afraid, because Gingrich is giving serious consideration to running for President.
I understand that Gingrich’s heart is in the right place. After all, who doesn’t want to protect America from terrorists? What concerns me about his idea, though, is that he doesn’t spell out how he plans on curbing the free speech rights of terrorists without also impinging the rights of legitimate, law-abiding American citizens. And just how does Gingrich plan on defining “terrorist”? The problem with an emotionally-laden term like “terrorist” is that it can be defined in any number of ways, and since due process undoubtedly will not be a part of creating the definition, things could get ugly. Given Gingrich’s far-right political leanings, we could well end up with an overly-broad definition that includes, among other things, Liberal Democrats. Sure, that might sound far-fetched, but think about it. Who’s going to get to set the definition of “terrorist”? And how do we ensure that this definition isn’t created and codified by someone with a partisan political agenda?
I’m all for doing everything we can to protect the Vaterland from terrorist attacks. These efforts, though, shouldn’t be thinly-veiled attempts to advance an agenda while devaluing those whom you disagree with. While Gingrich’s idea may sound innocent and simplistic- curtail the free speech rights of terrorists- the problem is that his idea IS innocent and simplistic.
Gingrich is not a stupid man; he know’s exactly what he’s talking about…and that’s what scares the Hell out of me. As a historian, he understands the importance of the rights he is talking about proscribing. What may on the surface seem so simple can, and likely will, turn out to be a Pandora’s Box. Rights, once eliminated or proscribed, are not easily recaptured.
If we willingly and knowingly sacrifice out rights and liberties to achieve safety, do we really deserve either liberty or rights? Not from where I sit. If we allow Gingrich and those like him to work their “magic”, we may well find ourselves in a country we no longer recognize.
Who says the terrorists haven’t already won?
