Gingrich Proposes To Criminalize The Visiting Of Sites Deemed “Favoring” Terrorist Groups


Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is made a highly disturbing proposal that people who visit sites that are deemed as favoring terrorist groups. As articulated by Gingrich in his Fox News interview, the proposal would eviscerate the first amendment and leave that government in a position to regulate speech and association based on an ill-defined standard. Gingrich also attracted criticism for his proposal to test Muslims to allow for deportation of anyone who “believes in Sharia” — a proposal that would sanction peoplr for their religious and political views.

Gingrich told Sean Hannity:

Sharia is incompatible with Western civilization. Modern Muslims who have given up Sharia, glad to have them as citizens. Perfectly happy to have them next door. But we need to be fairly relentless about defining who our enemies are. Anybody who goes on a website favoring ISIS, or Al Qaeda, or other terrorist groups, that should be a felony, and they should go to jail.

I have been a long critic of Sharia systems and I share the view that it is incompatible with Western values of due process and free speech. Yet, Gingrich combines his criticism with a proposal that itself would deny the very rights threatened by Sharia systems. People can check out these sites for a variety of reasons. Journalists and columnists routinely visit such sites. So do academics and curious citizens. Moreover, people are allowed to read about and support such causes so long as they do not offer material support to a terrorist organization.

If Gingrich were successful, what would stop another Administration from declaring other sites as the basis for arrest like militant pro-life sites or Black Lives Matter sites or militant environmental sites? Once you give the government the power to effectively criminalize ideas or associations, the desire to expand such prohibited zones becomes insatiable as authoritarian figures in China, Iran, and most recently Turkey have shown.

What do you think?

42 thoughts on “Gingrich Proposes To Criminalize The Visiting Of Sites Deemed “Favoring” Terrorist Groups”

  1. The latest report-or is it a rumor?-from the Trump campaign has to be a legal lulu. It is a proposal that the US Congress pass a law which will allow a President Trump to fire all Federal employees “appointed” by President Obama. Does that include all Federal employees hired (not “appointed”) during the Obama years? If so will that law be constitutional Mr. Turley? Can the Federal government break contracts without legal cause?
    How about federal officers appointed by President Obama and confirmed by the Senate? Most probably serve at the pleasure of the President and will resign if Trump becomes President. However, Federal Judges too? Generals? Admirals?
    What a can of worms.

  2. YES, criminal charges are just the effort needed to attack FOX, CNN, Bloomburg and all the others that lie, inflame and fool citizens. Then Citizens should get rewarded for following sites that promote good citizenship and responsibility like being in this country with documents and not illegally.

  3. I think we are supposed to believe that the government already monitors terrorist watering holes and they even know which ones are their’s. I guess I think the litmus test of Sharia law would be fair to be applied when anyone is requesting entry. If a person is here on a visa, yes, being a promoter of Sharia law could be used to revoke or any other legal action. I don’t see anything wrong with favoring immigration from nations that have democratic governments and rejecting immigration from nations whose cultures are anathema to America. Because there is no right to immigrate here, it’s a privilege that we can grant and we should grant it for our own best interests. After a person is a naturalized citizen, they have the same rights as any citizen. Watching what is happening in UK and Europe it’s insane not to put an end to allowing immigration from nations whose cultures are naturally antagonistic to the American rule of law.

  4. I think that Newt’s little Choo Choo has gone chugging around the bend. Either that of he’s developed a substance abuse issue.

  5. Michael Aarethun. I think that you are wrong. Every resident of the United States regardless of nationality is protected by our constitution. Foreign residents can “carry arms” just as freely as you can.

  6. Obviously we all know this is not going to happen so don’t get your kilts in a twither. We have people talking like this because of the last 7 years of the worst administration the country has suffered.

    Squeeky F – Great photo with the hat.

  7. At the very least this is censorship. At the very worst it is another nail in the Constitution’s coffin. As I have already said, there is a perfect storm coming. Somewhere along the line we “all” have to ask ourselves one question. Who are we and what are we about. I fear someday we won’t be able to get up on the soap box and say our piece. God bless America.

  8. Jerry Dolan: What is a terrorist site? Generally the expression of ideas through words have the greatest protection under the First Amendment–so what ideas would you outlaw accessing?

  9. It is a crime to visit child porn sites, so why shouldn’t it be a crime to visit terrorist sites.

  10. Jill
    “My hope is that citizens will quit falling for good cop/bad cop and start thinking about what is actually happening.”

    Sorry Jill but that’s why governments dumb-down it’s citizenry. The entire system is based on this strategy as humanity continues to fight one another in whatever battlefield they choose. Whether religion, politics, law, education, social, etc. The list goes on and on and the masses will never understand that they are controlled by these forces. That’s where the stupid comes into play.

  11. Evidence demonstrates that fewer murders occur when countries neither advocate ubiquitous guns nor do they commit international war crimes. What complicates those seemingly simple principles is that today so much wealth depends on sales of weapons and committing international war crimes. That dynamic needs to change.

    Doglover, you nailed it 100%.

  12. Yep. Jill points out the “divide and conquer” strategy of the elites. Keep the serfs quarreling among themselves so they don’t see the bigger picture. It’s not about keeping us safe, it’s about keeping control. Ask some questions!

  13. Newt needs to be evaluated by a psychologist, a psychiatrist and a tryst artist.

  14. There are no simple answers as to how to keep ourselves “safe”. Clearly it is not by constraining ideas, research, communications. Constraining the immigration of folks with learning disorders, illiteracy, religious fanaticism of any sort, might help some. (It might rule out the Dali Lama, the Pope, and Mother Theresa, but that might be a step worth taking anyway if it ruled out those who believe they are killing to please god.)

    Evidence demonstrates that fewer murders occur when countries neither advocate ubiquitous guns nor do they commit international war crimes. What complicates those seemingly simple principles is that today so much wealth depends on sales of weapons and committing international war crimes. That dynamic needs to change.

Comments are closed.