One can sympathize with the government’s prying methods as a way to avoid future consequences, but must consider the downfalls that are present with every success. The U.S. government has infringed their citizens’ right to privacy. Some are very quick to dismiss everybody’s civil liberties, which generations of Americans sacrificed to ensure in order to build a country that everybody envied. Calamities such as 9/11 does make it seem as though it makes sense to track for more terrorist plans, even though citizen’s rights will be violated. However, the deterioration of civil rights is should be avoided since many people fail to recognize the value of these rights until they are taken away.
I believe that The Patriot Act does not help control terrorism. Instead, it undermines us as loyal citizens and is a way for the government to abuse their power over the citizens. How are we really free as Americans when our government is keeping a very watchful eye on us? Almost too watchful. The government has access to almost everything.
This filter can, and in some cases has already been, be extended to block other ideas and information the acting government wants to hide from its public (Killock). After serious inspection, it is clear that this filter is essentially pointless for the governments stated use. In my opinion, this legislation is a very serious threat to both the privacy of individuals and free speech and the democratic process One of... ... middle of paper ... ...eates for the modern west. While the United States is more enamored with the concepts of free speech and the absence of government interference in our daily lives, it is not hard to imagine our government passing similar legislation. Already, we have passed legislation like the Patriot Act that greatly restricts our freedoms.
Many Americans were discredited before McCarthy and his actions were discovered as improper use of the Congressional investigation process. The extremist movement within the United States is formulated out of citizens that are enraged against improper governmental control. These groups feel that unless they rise up against the ignorance and oppressive government, then the government’s power will only be enhanced until finally smothering all the rights of those without enough power to fight back. The extremist groups main tool is provocation, and the only way for the government to properly fight these groups without compromising the rights of all citizens, is to allow the message to be heard as long as the rights and liberties of no other citizen is compromised. In order to change from the abuses of the past, there must be an understanding of what is true.
Due to these violations the ruling on the Schneck v. United States case should be overturned in order to protect the right of free speech and protest to all citizens. The ruling in Schneck v United States should be overturned because it violates the free speech clause. Under the free speech clause the government does not have the right to deny any persons the right to speak of their opinion of the government despite the severity of the subject at hand. In the Schenck case, the Supreme Court ruled that the United States government had the right to arrest Charles Schenck due to his actions. Because of his arrest, Schenck’s freedom of speech was violated when he was taken into custody for mailing out his opinion and advice on the draft.
“The freedom to petition also protects the right to criticize the government and it’s public officials, so long as the criticism is not a published communication that falsely and maliciously harms a person 's reputation” (1FAC). Colonists were often angered that the King of England and Parliament ignored their protests or petitions and tried to get rid of any disagreement they had with their laws. The colonists requested for change in regards to taxes and other laws. Consequently, the founding fathers created the first amendment to guarantee that individuals had the right to protest and petition when things were not going as they
Some argue that free speech should limit hate speech in order to protect certain American citizens. David van Mi... ... middle of paper ... ...d be constitutional or not is a growing controversy not only in public universities of America, but throughout the entire country as well. American citizens take pride in their freedom, but those values are put to the test when a speaker offends their morality by inciting hate. Ethical citizens must understand that hate speech falls under the same constitutional protection as any other speech. The right of free speech is undividable; when one citizen is denied this right, all citizens are denied.
Snowden had a valid and justifiable reason to expose the NSA to the world because they were in violation of our fourth Amendment rights to unreasonable searches and seizures. The government called him a traitor, while others viewed him as a hero for exposing the government. Edward Snowden is a whistle blower because he felt that it is up to society to decide if governmental practices are just or unjust. Snowden does “express the highest respect for the law”, and he wanted to protect the right of privacy for American citizens. It is likely to consider Edward Snowden as a whistle blower because he wanted the people to decide what the government can or can not do.
It also gave the President the power to deport and/or arrest any immigrant that was considered, “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States” as well as restricting anything written or spoken that criticized the government (Arnold, 2011, p. 10). John Adams and his administration claimed these laws were designed to protect the nation from foreign enemies. The Republicans disagreed and believed this was a way for the Federalist to gain more control in government. According to Garrison (2009), between 1798 and 1800, under the terms of the Sedition Act, “twenty-five individuals were arrested for slanderously publishing newspapers or pamphlets to bring disrepute upon the President or government of the United States”... ... middle of paper ... ...ternal Security Acts of 1798: The Founding Generation and the Judiciary during America's First National Security Crisis. Journal Of Supreme Court History, 34(1), 1-27. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5818.2009.01196.x.
And Americans are especially bad at this because we are Americans, and catastrophes are not supposed to happen to us. Our legal culture, our political culture and our media culture all push us toward excessive caution by guaranteeing that any large disaster will produce an orgy of hindsight. Lawyers will sue, politicians will hold hearings, newspapers and newsmagazines will publish overexcited revelations about secret memos that could be interpreted as having warned of this if held up to the light at a certain angle. Second, the actual risk of being a terror victim is not merely small—it is unknown and unknowable. Economists make a distinction between "risk" and "uncertainty."