People demanding P.C. speech limits on ISIS are a greater threat to America than ISIS itself

(NaturalNews) Freedom of speech is one of our most precious rights as Americans, but what must be understood is that in protecting the spirit of the First Amendment we must also allow the free expression of what some would consider as being “dangerous” or “hateful” ideas.

Since the 9/11 attacks, and now through invoking the dreaded specter of ISIS, those who seek to curtail our freedoms continue to exploit the fear of terrorism in an effort to strip us of our fundamental rights of privacy and free speech.

As much as we’ve already surrendered – think Patriot Act, NSA, Homeland Security, etc. – the authoritarians are advocating the curtailment of even more of our guaranteed free speech rights.

Incredibly, there are influential members of both parties now calling for limitations on the First Amendment.

In a recent article published by The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald – journalist, constitutional lawyer and author of No Place to Hide, a book which details his experiences with the Snowden case and the surveillance state – has offered an eloquent defense of the First Amendment, and an argument against those who want to impose further limits on free speech.

Greenwald begins by recalling the 2006 speeches and articles by Newt Gingrich, in which the former Speaker of the House “called for a serious debate about the First Amendment and how terrorists are abusing our rights — using them as they once used passenger jets — to threaten and kill Americans.”

At the time, Gingrich also wrote that terrorists should be “subject to a totally different set of rules,” and that an international convention should be created to determine “what activities will not be protected by free speech claims.”

As extremist as those proposals seemed in 2006 – and they were almost unanimously decried by observers across the political spectrum – there are now “mainstream voices” saying essentially the same thing.

Those mainstream voices include journalists from The New York Times, Bloomberg and Slate – and even presidential candidates from both parties.

Referring to a recent New York Times article entitled ISIS Influence on Web Prompts Second Thoughts on First Amendment, Greenwald wrote:

“The NYT article notes that ‘in response to the Islamic State’s success in grooming jihadists over the internet, some legal scholars are asking whether it is time to reconsider’ the long-standing ‘constitutional line’ that ‘freedom of speech may not be curbed unless it poses a “clear and present danger” — an actual, imminent threat, not the mere advocacy of harmful acts or ideas. …’

“It also notes that the desire to restrict the internet as a means of fighting ISIS has seeped into the leadership of both parties: Donald Trump said the ‘internet should be closed up’ to ISIS, while ‘Hillary Clinton said the government should work with host companies to shut jihadist websites and chat rooms,’ a plan that would be unconstitutional ‘if the government exerted pressure on private firms to cooperate in censorship.'”

As scary as ISIS may appear to be, it’s even scarier to contemplate the fact that mainstream pundits and potential leaders are ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater in the name of fighting terrorism.

As Greenwald points out: “The greatest threats to Western countries have come from those seeking to limit rights in the name of fighting terrorism, not the terrorists themselves.”

His conclusion sums up the issue concisely and brilliantly:

“The solution to their dangerous ideas is to confront and refute them, not outlaw them. But it is vital to recognize the danger they and their ideas entail. We’ve been told for years that The Terrorists ‘hate our freedoms,’ yet we cannot seem to rid ourselves of those who think the solution is to voluntarily abolish those freedoms ourselves.”

My sentiments exactly.

Source:

TheIntercept.com