Gingrich waves the white flag at al-Qaeda.

Newt Gingrich: In order to stop the terrorists who hate our freedoms we must eliminate those freedoms, thus making ourselves less of a target. (Via Slashdot)

Published by Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith (JAKE-with) is an open government technologist who lives near Char­lottes­­ville, VA, USA. more »

11 replies on “Gingrich waves the white flag at al-Qaeda.”

  1. Fascinating how he could argue for limitations on freedom of speech while simultaneously criticizing campaign finance caps and separation of church and state rulings.

    So it’s not the free speech of his party’s supporters that needs checked … no, no, of course not. It’s someone else’s free speech.

    Figures. Always is.

  2. The article doesn’t make it clear what a “different set of rules” means. If all he’s talking about is making it illegal for violent jihadists to recruit members in order to kill Americans, then I don’t have a problem with that. Nor do I see how that constitutes waving the white flag at al Quaeda.

    Of course, there are all sorts of interpretaion problems with any law that gets near the 1st Amendment as well as lots of slippery slope arguments. But if there were a constitutional and practicable way “to get ahead of the curve” and make it harder for al Quaeda “to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message,” then I’d be all for it.

  3. I read this:

    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.

    and then this:

    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.

    And thought- “this guys a real moron.” If we don’t have Freedom of Speech in the U.S. then I’d really rather be living in Canada (they don’t have Freedom of Speech up there either, but at least some of the social programs make up for that).

  4. Ol’Newt can shut down every media outlet in the ME and it won’t hide the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Nor will it obscure the US military presence in Qatar, Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia.

    A “different set of rules” may be needed to reduce terrorists’ ability to use the Internet” is what you say when your party is years behind in effectively using the internet to communicate.

    This is the Republican party – control the message from the top, ignore reality, dissemble, redirect, play to fear and emotion.

  5. Judge,

    But if there were a constitutional and practicable way “to get ahead of the curve” and make it harder for al Quaeda “to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message,” then I’d be all for it.

    I thought all that would be covered in the NSA data-mining and eavesdropping (domestic spying) programs?

  6. I’m not knowledgeable enough on “NSA data-mining” and foreign intelligence (FISA et al) to to respond in an educated fashion. But here’s what I think, borrowing from NRO contributor Andy McCarthy:

    McCain/Feingold says the political speech that was the core of the original First Amendment protection can be regulated. Are you really telling me that we can stop someone from speaking out on behalf of a candidate for public office but we have to allow jihadists to call for mass murder? I don’t think so.

  7. Are you really telling me that we can stop someone from speaking out on behalf of a candidate for public office but we have to allow jihadists to call for mass murder?

    We don’t allow anybody to call for mass murder, jihadists or otherwise.

  8. Perhaps not directly, but people are certainly allowed to call for “jihad” to “smite the enemies of Islam,” whoever they are.

    Some contimue to believe that “jihad” means “personal inner struggle” for a “low fat, high fiber diet,” but I got off that bus a while back.

  9. Perhaps not directly, but people are certainly allowed to call for “jihad” to “smite the enemies of Islam,” whoever they are.

    Much as you’re allowed to call for war to smile the enemies of the United States. That’s because, somehow, war is OK and mass murder isn’t.

    I don’t get it, either.

  10. Free speech, as I see it, is supposed to mean that speech is allowed, even if we are uncomfortable with it. For instance, I abhor the speech of Bill O’Reilly and David Horowitz. Does that mean I want their right to say wierd and crappy things to be taken away?

    No. It means that even though it makes me uncomfortable and embarrassed to listen to it (on the occasion that some of it sneaks through the barricades), I stand for their right to say it. Do I wish they were not allowed to say it in a business decision? (show cancelled, book rejected)

    Yes. Even the speech that is hateful to a degree is protected. I see no difference between that and the right of someone declaring they want the US to become a socialist nation, or whatever their particular flavor is.

    The SCOTUS has declared some speech not constitutionaly protected. Until they mess up a few more times, I will go with them on what is ‘free’ speech and what isn’t.

    In fact, the very conversations held on the internet by all political persuasions could be called into question, as I understand Newt’s suggestions. Possibly even more restrictions we don’t now imagine.

Comments are closed.