Freedom, Privacy, and Security, Essay Example

The tragic event of 9/11 initiated a series of debates in the public arena one of which was the extent to which citizens’ privacy and freedom could be compromised by the government for the sake of improving their overall safety and security. The U.S. Government took several steps to improve intelligence surveillance one of which was the Patriot Act. Under the Patriot Act, the government has several powers which may violate the privacy or freedom of an individual such as engaging in search and seizure on the basis of even slight suspicion and wiretapping a person or an institution without notifying them (ACLU). Similarly, contrary to popular notion, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute even in America. Even if one may attribute the terrorist attacks against the U.S. and its interests to the U.S. Government’s aggressive foreign policy, any kind of support for regimes or organizations working against U.S. interests could lead to prosecution by the U.S. Government. While freedom of speech/action and right to privacy are valuable rights, compromising them for overall public safety and security is the right thing to do because it increases the overall welfare of the society.

There are several other examples that demonstrate how our freedom and privacy has been compromised for the sake of safety and security one of which is regulations governing air travel. There is no lack of articles or videos on the internet to protest airport security procedures such as body scanners which have been criticized for invading individual privacy. While the critics do have a valid argument, the government also has the responsibility to ensure the safety of its citizens. The right to safe travel trumps the right to privacy when it comes to air travel and the government has an obligation to maximize the interests of the overall society. Body scanners are little price to pay when measured against the value of life. Terrorists have not stopped after 9/11 as the examples of a shoe bomber and failed detonation attempt by a Nigerian citizen demonstrate.

The shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado as well as the children’s school in Newtown, Connecticut has reignited the debate on gun control. The critics of gun control often cite the Second Amendment in their defense but they fail to realize that no right is absolute, not even the right to free speech. In fact, in the District of Columbia vs. Heller case, the federal appeals court stated that while Second Amendment grants an individual the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn’t suggest that the government cannot regulate the use and ownership of pistols (White). In other words, the government can limit a certain right in the overall interest of the society. If the right granted by the Second Amendment were absolute, citizens should have been able to buy advanced weapons such as rocket missiles and tanks. The weapon-owners may have a right to bear arms but the U.S. citizens also have a right to security from irresponsible use of weapons.

The shooting at Newtown, Connecticut makes us wonder if we cannot even protect our children from gun violence now. President Obama has been pushing for background check on gun owners but the negotiations are currently stalled due to opposition from four senators (Fram). Background checks should be approved so that we can prevent guns from going into the hands of those who may potentially misuse them even if their right to bear arms may be violated. This attempt to prevent weapons from getting into the hands of potentially dangerous people is no different than preventing driving under the influence of alcohol because the potential consequences are huge economic and social costs to the society. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, gun-related deaths cost the U.S. economy tens of billions of dollars and Bloomberg states that gun-related fatalities may surpass deaths from automobile collisions by 2015 (Young).

The First Amendment which guarantees the right to freedom of speech, is probably the most cited argument by both private individuals as well as the media. Even though a free media benefits the society and media should be able to express itself without unnecessary censorship by the state, it doesn’t imply that the media has no obligation to consider the consequences of its actions. Like every organization, media companies also have certain obligations towards the society. The press is sometimes controlled by the individuals who have their own economic and political agenda and inaccurate reporting could result in prejudice against certain groups or threaten the measures being taken by the government in the public interest. Thus, press should be held accountable for irresponsible reporting if their actions violate the trust of the public and may threaten national security. Every right comes with obligations and freedom of speech is no different. Only violence doesn’t hurt others but words also and press has an obligation to ensure it doesn’t violate the dignity and good reputation of an individual or a group unless there is a valid reason to do so.

Citizens have a right to free speech and privacy but they also have a right to safety and security. No right is absolute and the best way to determine whether a certain right is worth limiting is to compare the cost of limiting the right to the benefits of doing so to the society. Freedom of speech is one of the defining traits of civilized society but like every right it should be used responsibly. Similarly, citizens have a right to privacy but sometimes it is inevitable to invade the right of few citizens to privacy for the greater benefit of the society.

References

ACLU. Reform the Patriot Act. 25 February 2013 <http://www.aclu.org/reform-patriot-act>.

Fram, Alan. Gun Background Checks Negotiation Stalled Over Records Dispute. 24 February 2013. 25 February 2013 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/24/gun-background-checks_n_2756243.html?utm_hp_ref=politics>.

White, Deborah. Pros & Cons of Gun Ownership & Use Laws for Individuals. 25 February 20123 <http://usliberals.about.com/od/patriotactcivilrights/i/ProConGunLaws.htm>.

Young, Jeffrey. Gun Deaths Cost U.S. Billions Each Year While Firearms Makers Thrive. 19 December 2012. 25 February 2013 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/guns-deaths-sandy-hook-shooting_n_2325706.html?utm_hp_ref=business>.