Slashdot Mirror
Newt Gingrich Says Visiting An ISIS Or Al Qaeda Website Should Be A Felony (techdirt.com)
flopsquad writes: Following the July 14th terror attack in Nice, France, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has called for U.S. Muslims to be tested for their belief in Sharia law, and if so, deported: "Western civilization is in a war. We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background and if they believe in Sharia they should be deported," Gingrich said in an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity. While the cleverest few might try to defeat such a test by answering "No," Mr. Gingrich laid out additional steps to shore up the plan: "The first step is you have to ask them the questions. The second step is you have to monitor what they're doing on the internet. The third step is, let me be very clear, you have to monitor the mosques. I mean, if you're not prepared to monitor the mosques, this whole thing is a joke." Gingrich also opined that "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. No word on the First and Fourth Amendment implications of his proposals, nor on where Gingrich plans to deport U.S. citizens who fail his Sharia test. Gingrich went on to say: "Any organization which hosts such a website should be engaged in a felon. It should be closed down immediately. Our forces should be used to systematically destroy every internet based source..." Mike Masnick from Techdirt writes: "Merely visiting a website should put you in jail? What if you're a journalist? Or a politician? Or a researcher trying to understand ISIS? That should be a felony? That's not how it works. This also assumes, idiotically, that merely reading a website about ISIS will make people side with ISIS. It's also not, at all, how the law works. Same with the second part about it being a felony to host such content."
What a retard. How do these people even get into government?
Jesus Newt, you can take off your crazy pants now. Trump didzn't pick you as his running mate.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I always find it interesting when I see someone complaining about Sharia law, and the person doing the complaining has no problems at all with the idea of shoving Christian law on everyone.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Now that he's no longer in the running for Veep he's gonna use the bump to sell as many of his books & merchant to frightened old people as he can. As for how extreme his nonsense is, it's kinda like when the Nigerian scammers write nonsense about long lost princes. You want to weed out the less bat shit crazies so you don't waste you're time with anyone who isn't a mark.
/. pointed out that for the rest of the world thinking about the country with the most nukes/largest military tolerating this much crazy is unnerving...
The sad thing is a major half of American politics revolves around this. I forgot who but somebody on
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Doing nothing is preferable to lashing out like a scared toddler.
No, he's actually intelligent. He is not saying this because it would be a smart thing to do, he is saying it to get press coverage and help with some strategic goal for his personal brand or for one of his current projects.
Real lawyers write in C++
How easily the lessons of history are lost upon the ignorant. When you threaten to imprison people for:
1. Having certain thoughts
2. Belonging to a specific ethnic, religious, or social group
3. Viewing, possessing, or accessing information
This is exactly the sort of thing that leads to totalitarianism and genocide. That is not to say that the dissemination of certain ideas are not dangerous (e.g. incitement to mass murder), or that certain forms of information/content should not be illegal to possess or distribute (e.g., child pornography). Yes, ISIS materials and websites that promote terrorism are awful, but merely *accessing* these, in of themselves, should not and cannot be regarded as criminal, since you would not only criminalize their supporters and sympathizers, but you'd criminalize anyone attempting to investigate them for the purposes of covert surveillance or academic research.
Terrorism, by its nature, is not the incitement of terror in a society for its own sake; no. Terrorism is a strategy by which individuals seek to overthrow a state by attacking its civilians; who, in their fear, appeal to the state to protect them through ever-increasingly draconian policies, such as those proposed by Mr. Gingrich. The state, whose interests are not to protect the people but to consolidate power and wealth into its own hands, makes the deliberate choice to restrict freedoms, until the people become so oppressed that they overthrow the government. This is how terrorism wins.
If the world wants to defeat ISIS and the like, the solution is to prevent their ideas from having any appeal. By threatening the same people that ISIS is trying to attract, all in the name of "national security," those who run the government are sending a very clear signal to anyone with a brain that in fact, they are not interested in stopping terrorism, but are all too happy to leverage fear as a way to gain power.
ISIS' goal with the attacks in the West is to provoke reactions against moderate Muslims in the West, causing radicalization and eventually open war between any Muslim and the West.
Gingrich plays right into their agenda.
---- Sig. gone.
Doing nothing is preferable to lashing out like a scared toddler.
Not if you're a politician, people will vote for a leader that takes resolute action over someone that shrugs and says live with it any day. Whether it actually helps doesn't matter, that's why you see security theater and such.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
People are dying. Mass murder has been made popular by ISIS and there have been several in just the last few weeks.
And there will be more.
Ok, so you don't like what Newt has to say. What is your solution?
Or is your solution to do nothing and ignore it?
I'm about as anti-ISIS as you can get, and a Republican. I also have a lot of respect for Newt for the way he reigned in the budget in the 90's, for which Bill Clinton gets a lot of credit. I'm completely fine with investigating ISIS sympathizers or those who identify as actual members, so long as it's not a witch hunt just because of someone's religion or country of origin, and based on actual leads. ISIS is a known terrorist and criminal organization, and I'm pretty sure there are laws on the books against aiding and abetting criminals or enemies of your country.
But what the fuck... A felony for looking at a pro-ISIS website? Does he not see the irony in adopting the same sort of tactics that a member of ISIS might propose - meting out punishment for anti-Islamic behavior or speech? Aren't we supposed to be better than that?
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Ok, so you don't like what Newt has to say.
Nothing wrong in pointing out that Newt is a retard for suggesting something unconstitutional. And that doesn't mean that the OP has to come up with a solution that satisfies you.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
How about we propose that anyone visiting Newt Gingrich's website should be charged with a felony? It's just as harmful.
His proposal does just as much to undermine the Constitution of the United States as any AQ or ISIS propaganda. Let's all be glad he no longer holds public office, and hope he never does again.
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
So ISIS's goal is the same as the Republicans. Provoke a war, then capitalize on it.
Learn to love Alaska
I'm completely fine with investigating ISIS sympathizers
How do you identify ISIS sympathizers without violating people's rights? Or do you just take the route a disturbing number of politicians have and legislate away annoying things like the Fourth Amendment, and put everyone under mass surveillance? And then, even if you do find someone who sympathizes with ISIS (perhaps even through an open confession), what would you do about it?
There's no law against having dangerous or stupid opinions (as evidenced by the "presumptive Republican presidential nominee", a phrase I'm getting all to tired of hearing). As long as someone doesn't take action themselves, or encourage others to do so, they're free to tell the world they think ISIS is just peachy keen and doin' Allah's work.
Regardless, this stale bullshit Newt is spewing is just another step on the road to the Thought Police. Reading something, even batshit religious propaganda, should never be a crime, no matter how long we've been at war with Eurasia.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
My first reaction is to think "what an idiot!" My second reaction is to think "Wait, this got somebody (I didn't care to hear from in the first place) into the news... is he mimicking Trump's approach?!"
Listen up United States! This is what happens when you award crackpots and morons with press. You end up with those willing to say anything getting elected. You get the government you deserve and heaven help those of us who just haven't yet built up the necessary disillusionment to emigrate.
The only way to end the threat of Islamic takeover of the world, next year or in 20 centuries, is to annihilate Islam root and branch. Turning Iran into a radioactive wasteland would be a good start.
Congratulations, you've just become an ISIS propaganda poster.
Sure takes Rick Rolling to a new, dark level.
They might tag someone like me with such a law. I never deliberately go to any Daesh-run sites, but I do follow the news on Syria closely, and some of the videos, reports, etc posted of various attacks, defenses, status reports, etc from various groups in various locations are posted to social media. And when I go to a random video, I have no clue whether a particular account who posted or shared a video or report is linked with some particular "prohibited" entity. And there are so many small entities that sometimes switch alliances, one entity might be "fine" at some point but then no longer "fine" later. And then there's the collaborative groups. For example, Nusra is part of Jaish al-Fatah (Army of Conquest). Most of JaF isn't considered terrorist groups, but Nusra is linked with al-Qaeda and is (even though they're bitter enemies with Daesh, who is enemy #1... crazy, this war....). So, if JaF puts out a drone video of an assault on south Aleppo and I watch it, am I in trouble? What's the dividing line? Whether the person who filmed it is from al-Nusra? Whether the drone pilot is from al-Nusra? Whether the video editor was from al-Nusra? Whether the guy running the twitter account is a member in al-Nusra, even if it's not a "Nusra account"? Am I supposed to somehow be able to know these things?
Then there's outright mistagging - Youtube takes stuff down without really paying close attention to it. For example, they took down a video I saw once which started out looking like one of those horrific Daesh execution videos - prisoners in jumpsuits, marched out by people with knives, lined up in a row, the knives lifted up in the air in unison. Except that the video wasn't from Daesh; it was from a FSA group from North Aleppo (Azaz pocket). The prisoners were Daesh soldiers. And they weren't executed; the knives were used to cut their bindings. Then an imam came in and gave the prisoners a sermon about how murder is wrong and so forth, and then the prisoners were walked to a holding facility. But clearly whoever had the video deleted paid no attention to who posted it, nor watched more than just the beginning.
Hourglass says she knows a kid in Iowa who grows up to be president.
No word on the First and Fourth Amendment implications of his proposals
Get a clue. The Bill of Rights is no longer in effect and much of the rest of the Constitution is or soon will be dead. How the hell can we defeat the enemies of freedom unless we take away all American's rights, assume they are guilty unless proven innocent, and deport everyone who doesn't accept the Truth of the One Christian God? (Including the split personality disorder and the zombiesm.) The enemies of this country have a paranoid hatred of us and we must defeat them by proving them right.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
It's slightly worse than that. ISIS are actively trying to usher in the apocalypse. They believe they are the/a key component in the end of the world. Hopefully the desire to usher in the apocalypse is not shared by mainstream Republicans.
The central distinguishing characteristic of Evangelicals, compared to other Christians, is the belief that the Apocalypse is near at hand, and that is a wonderful, wonderful, thing! It is God's ultimate plan for the entire world! The wicked will be smitten and the righteous (themselves, that is) will be rewarded!
Evangelicals constituted more than 40% of all votes that Romney got in the last election.
So, nearly half of Republicans do ardently hope for the Apocalypse.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
understand why huge portions of the global population do what they do and why entire civilizations are built they way they are.
I have read "The moon is a Harsh Mistress" and "Starship Troopers", many works of Asimov and I believe I understand them. I read them even though I know they are fiction. I read "The Hunt for Red October" even though I did not believe it was a true story. I've read many other works of fiction, and I've listened to songs about imaginary situations, and watched TVshows and Movies I knew to be completely made-up, like Star Trek. I've read Shakespeare and Hemingway and many other books by many other authors,both fiction and non-fiction. This is all part of being a well-rounded, culturally-aware and "educated" person. You can read a Bible and/or a Koran with the belief that one or the other is a sacred text (though yoou cannot hold both to be valid without being schizophrenic) or with the equal certainty that they are both complete works of fiction. Either way it is educational, eye-openeing, and intellectually honest in two ways: You'll actually know what's in those books, AND you'll know when others who cite them are doing so honestly or dishonestly.
I presume you also recommend people not read the Constitution of The United States, The Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, The Wealth of Nations, The Communist Manifesto, Democracy in America, Mein Kampf, etc?
Well-educated people read plenty of stuff they agree with, some stuff they believe in, and plenty of stuff they know to be fiction and/or complete garbage.
Ignorant people celebrate NOT reading books and sometimes even heap them into piles and burn them.
You have the post-modern flare of youthful enthusiasm for self-inflicted mental blindness that is all-too common these days. It's sad really. People with your attitude of blissful ignorance are the counterpoint to people who spend their lives building libraries. [facepalm]
Are you high, or just ignorant? How about:
"kill them wherever you find them"
"fighting is prescribed for you"
"soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers"
"those who believe fight in the cause of allah"
"and be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy"
"and fight them until there is no more fitna and religion is all for allah"
"Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands"
and on, and on, and on.
Hopefully the desire to usher in the apocalypse is not shared by mainstream Republicans.
Unfortunately the same desire is shared by more than a few republicans, they call it "the rapture". Their christian god lifts them to heaven while everyone else burns, apparently the same god told muslims a different story.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
This is not a hard game to play. Education is as as simple as a goddamn web search and attempt to read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Sharia deals with many topics, including crime, politics, marriage contracts, trade regulations, religious prescriptions, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, everyday etiquette and fasting. Adherence to sharia has served as one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Muslim faith historically.[5] In its strictest definition, sharia is considered in Islam as the infallible law of God.[6][not in citation given]
It is ILLEGAL under SHARIA to be Gay! It is ILLEGAL under SHARIA to ignore Muslim religious requirements. You can be Christian but you better face East and Pray when they do, or you are a criminal.
Saudi Arabia lives under Sharia Law, which is why you can not freely travel to that country and do so at your own risk by US Law. Show us how peaceful the Religion is by paying a visit and publicly announcing you are a gay. Even better, go publicly announce your Jewish faith and read some Torah in the public square. You are a feckless lying twat who would do no such thing because you know you would be beheaded by those "peaceful" Muslims following their Sharia Law.
I have facts to back my statements, not bullshit. Where are your facts exactly? Oh yeah, those things are bad.
I just proved your statements false, and further repeated attempts at lying are going to be ignored. Not because you are Anonymous, but because you are a liar attempting to hide behind anonymity.
Here is the poll I mentioned. Not that a lying liar like you would read any such inconvenient facts but the bystander may.
Feckless and dishonest, quote the resume you sport.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.