Well well, it appears that Newt Gingrich wants to make some changes to the first amendment in the name of fighting the War on Terror. Or... does he? It's nearly impossible to tell what he was actually thinking judging from the way that the media is starting to report on what he said. Considering the fact that he opposed the Communications Decency Act and has had sharp words for "campaign finance reform" laws, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss him as another boot-licking statist on this issue just yet.
My guess is that he meant that the United States may have to play hardball and actually start charging Muslims who do the usual jihad song and dance on our soil with sedition--something that I would whole-heartedly welcome. Sedition has never been protected speech under the American legal system, and I cannot think of any modern day action that best fits it here than actively urging jihad against the United States and things like that.
Of course, there is always the slim possibility that he is now so thoroughly shaken in his support for limited government that he is now another closet brown shirt, but we should all wait for him to get a chance to clarify what he actually meant since the media barely delivered a sound bite.
You're not really fooled by Newt's impersonation of any type of Constitutionalist, are you Mike?
I haven't thought Newt was anything but an 'out-of-closet' brownshirt, or far worse, ever since his public worship of FDR and endorsement of the Future Shock he (Newt) hoped to foist on us!
PS> And what he "really means" is that those old words like "Congress shall make no law" never applied to the Truly Annointed like him!
I don't think he's perfect, but he doesn't strike me as nearly as bad as most leading Republicans. That's why I am willing to say, "let him explain himself" because he has come out with some very blunt criticism of past laws that curtail freedom of speech. I'm just giving him some benefit of the doubt based on his past record on free speech issues.
What "Future Shock" stuff are you referring to?
I whet my appetite for politics in Newt's hey-day. But since then, there's been a very under-reported routing of small-government power brokers from the Republican high ranks. It started with Newt, and you'll notice Dick Army suddenly disappeared right before Iraq revved up. Tom DeLay was a bit more messy, but it must be remembered just because he was from Texas, he wasn't in lock-step with Georgous George.
Newt wants back in. While he was never outright libertarian, he reeked of the stench of individual self-determination enough he knew he'd have to take an ideological bath before he would be brooked again.
The upshot of bringing Newt back into the fold is that tepid paleo-conservatives might jump ship onto the Neocon dreadnaught to follow him.
Sedition speech is a slippery slope I'm not prepared to follow anyone down. It's just a variant of thought-crimes you and I would likely be found guilty of.
"What "Future Shock" stuff are you referring to?"
Newt practically worships at the Toffler altar, Mike - do a web search for all those connections.
And, admittedly, saying that Newt is not-so-evil compared to the likes of Bush and McCain is a bit like saying Stalin looks good compared to Mao and Adolf...
It's all very true that sedition can be a dangerous criminal charge, but then again so can treason. I think that most people on a jury, even idiots, would have the good sense to tell the difference between real sedition like agitating for jihad and simply disagreeing with policy. I'm not one to advocate armed revolt openly, in part because of the fact that it's never been a good idea, even in the most liberal periods of history to openly admit to such a thing.