Yessterday Newt Gingrich floated the idea that freedom of speech may need to be curbed in certain circumstances to meet the threat of terrorism.

The newspaper article didn't give much context to Gingrich's remarks, but I suppose you can conjure up scenarios where the public good would be served by abridging some free speech rights in certain instances. Still, the libertarian in me recoils at talk of "re-examining" the boundaries of freedom of speech.

As questionable as Gingrich's remarks on free speech are, however, they pale in comparison to the views of Jesse Jackson, who wrote yesterday that it's time to outlaw the n-word and other "hate speech:"

Our forefathers created the First Amendment to ensure a robust public debate and to prohibit the government from making laws to squelch political speech, even speech critical of our leaders. But obscenity has never enjoyed that protection, nor should it. Yelling ''fire'' in a crowded theater does not have protection. Similarly, hate speech -- like that wielded by [Michael] Richards -- has and should be illegal.

Imagine the sight of someone dialing the cops that night at the Laugh Factory and the police hauling Richards off in handcuffs.

Now imagine what a thoroughly impossible task defining hate speech would be. Who get to decide which words are considered hateful? Jesse Jackson? A "bi-partisan, blue ribbon commission?"

Certainly the n-word would be on the list (though that alone would probably criminalize about half of the rap music sold in stores, and played on the radio and MTV). But what about words that could be considered hurtful to other groups? Could Jesse Jackson be locked up for, oh, I don't know, calling Jews "hymies" and New York "hymietown?"

Since free speech is what you write as well as what you say, would writers and/or bloggers be fined for using or reprinting certain words? And could you be prosecuted for, say, publishing material like Steve Gilliard's infamous depiction of Republican Michael Steele as "simple sambo" which many found racially offensive?

What about the Mohammed Cartoons? Would Jackson have classified the cartoons as "hate speech" toward Muslims, thereby making it a crime for newspapers to rerpint them?

Irrespective of whether Jackson's intentions are noble or not - and I have my doubts - the idea of categorizing and criminalizing "hate speech" is nuts. Our job as a society is to define and defend the limits of free speech by shaming and castigating those who go beyond what the majority finds acceptable. That's what happened in the case of Michael Richards, and it's exactly the way things are supposed to work.