War on speech?

Newt Gingrich thinks we should have a “different set of rules” in regards to freedom of speech during the neverending war on everything. However, if you read between the lines, it is obvious who those new rules are for. He says these different rules “may be needed to reduce terrorists’ ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message.” He specifically refers to internet use. Obviously, the grassroots internet movement on the left has the righties scared. If you read further in the article, you will notice that he has no problem with free speech when it comes to corporations, lobbyists, and Christians.

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.

If you go back and analyze the rhetoric of the right over the past few months, you get this:

Liberals and Democrats are terrorist lovers, people who criticize Bush and his policies are helping the enemies, and free speech needs to be regulated to keep the “terrorists” from using it to further their agenda.

If you think that this is just the crazy ranting of a person on the extreme fringe and could never materialize, think back a few years to the rhetoric being used to circumvent the court system:

The Defense Department, in its March 2005 National Defense Strategy for the United States of America, cautioned against foes who use a “strategy of the weak” against the United States, such as “using international fora, judicial processes, and terrorism.” The Defense Department’s logic appeared simple: We dominate the world militarily. Anyone who decides to confront us in some other way is not playing fair. Ergo, they are violating the rules.

Two years before that, the Council on Foreign Relations coined the phrase “lawfare” to describe this logic. “Lawfare,” opined CFR, is the “strategy of using or misusing law as a substitute for traditional military means to achieve military objectives.” Under this logic, individuals whose privacy has been invaded, or who have been detained despite being innocent, and then seek redress in the courts are committing acts of “lawfare.”

So, could the concept of free speech be bastardized and redefined as a “tool” the terrorists could use against us, and therefore it must be stifled? I think the bastardization has already occured and the effort to supress is kicking into high gear. Look at the military groups whose job it is to “monitor” internet sites. Also, Chertoff referred to the internet as a “recruiting ground” for terrorists several months ago. There is already a strategic assault on free speech, especially in regards to the internet. My question is this: when is the redefining of free speech going to be legislated and do for our freedom of speech what the Military Commissions Act did for our court system?

posted by navyswan # 11/29/2006 04:28:00 PM (7) Volleys | Trackback