Decius wrote:
The Gingrich quote in full. This perspective shouldn't be dismissed outright. Al Queda is a scene. It has no central organization. Its just a bunch of people who share a perspective. They share that perspective online. If you want to stop them from organizing, you have to stop them from hanging out online. And that runs into the first amendment like a train wreck. This is the fundamental question of our age.

I think it should be dismissed outright. One of the main ways we know what these groups are up to is because we let them talk about it. I think effectively, privacy is in more danger of being changed than speech is. If you don't allow open rebellion through speech, then you end up with dissatisfied masses which have no other outlet to change things other than violence. Restricting speech would probably do more to encourage terror than it would to help. Just because their type of organization might be illegal will not make them impossible, it will just help them to be sure to be extra careful. We want these groups to exercise their speech, and the louder the better.

terratogen wrote:
If you don't allow open rebellion through speech, then you end up with dissatisfied masses which have no other outlet to change things other than violence.

I strongly agree. Its just that in this environment, there is an inevitable interface between speech and organization, which is similar to the interface between the civilian and the solider, which is discussed in the linked article:

A prisoner of war, for example, does not have a constitutional right to counsel. Conversely, an accused in the criminal context does have a right to counsel and a host of procedural and substantive protections.

When wars were fought with muskets on designated battlefields, the division between these two spheres was clear. Today, the distinction is increasingly blurred.

We have to figure out where the line ought to be. The discussion is one of the most important ones going on today.