Free Speech: Casualty of Fear

What with break and the closest thing to writer's block I've experienced in some time, it's been quite awhile since I updated this thing. Allow me a few quick thoughts on Newt Gingrich's latest attempt to remove any remaining shred of respectability he may once have had.

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.

My views on liberty notwithstanding, so long as the reduction forever mutes former heads of state and ex-congressmen from speaking, I could consider getting behind that.

Is this man serious? Was he really the Speaker of the Republican House? Just how on earth is this line of thinking even vaguely defensible, especially if one views government to be but a necessary evil?

"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.

The possibility of "losing a city" is always present. But a reduction in liberties cannot increase safety; in fact, it will only lead to a reduction therein as citizen's of the twentieth century and onward possess a higher likelihood of being murdered by their own government than by either foreign invaders or one's own citizens. But we must give government the power to keep us safe. Can someone show me one historical example of when this actually worked?

Giving government power is always a terrible idea. They will abuse it; and never will they return it to its rightful owner. Liberty, once forfeited, is good as gone. Sort of like the republic.