Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The tension between freedom and security
Personal liberty vs national security
Liberty versus security
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The tension between freedom and security
Throughout time, there has been debate about security and liberty. Many would agree that having both is vital to having a democracy. However, during desperate times, the government might place security or liberty on a higher pedestal and this can be beneficial or detrimental to the society. In the particular case where a country goes to war and the government orders a draft, the true significance of the debate between security and liberty is brought to light. Especially, in a circumstance where the government enacts laws ordering those who protest anti-war and anti-draft views to be thrown in jail, facing long jail sentences. In this case, the government is placing the security of the citizens above their liberties. If this is the right decision for the government to make and if this will have negative consequences on the society is what is being considered. Security is necessary, especially when a country is at war, but ignoring the people’s liberties is placing the values and principles in which democracy was built, at risk. In addition, placing security above liberty causes chaos, rebellion, and riots within the country and the last thing a country needs while trying to fight a war is chaos within their country. People in society with restricted liberties will begin to feel fear, anger, and hatred for the country. As a result, they become disloyal. A combination on disorder and disloyalty can be detrimental in times of war. Therefore, while security is imperative, undermining citizen’s liberties threatens the structure of the democracy by creating chaos and disloyal citizens. In a society where freedom of speech, assembly, and press is highly valued, passing a law prohibiting “willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordin...
... middle of paper ...
...it was founded. This means that the country must not forget to give its citizens freedom of speech, press, and assembly. By doing so, they will create a secure environment within the state and have loyal citizens that are willing to fight for the security of the country as a whole, regardless if it is right or wrong. When a democracy finds itself in a problematic decision, it should choose to put liberty above the security of the people. It is true that too much liberty, hinders security but by showing the citizens that the country is genuinely concerned about their wellbeing, they build a better relationship and loyal citizen. Loyal citizen is what the country will need when it is fighting a war. Security is important for the success of the country and to have the ability to protect the country and to protect liberties but a country is nothing without its citizens.
“Freedom of expression, willful promotion of hatred and the charter of civil rights and freedoms: R.v. Keegstra.” Ontario justice education network. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2014. .
Creating a safe space is more important for some rather than others. In “The Hell You Say” by Kelefa Sanneh for The New Yorker, he provides an interesting look at the views of Americans who support censorship of speech and those who are completely against it. Another issue I gathered from his article was that people use their right to free speech in wrong ways and end up harassing people. Providing two sides of a controversial debate, his article makes us think of which side we are on. So, whether or not censorship should be enforced; and how the argument for free speech is not always for the right reason, Sanneh explores this with us.
Historically, citizens of many countries sacrifice their personal liberties for a sense of security masked as a governmental attempt for pushing their views onto the citizens. A historical example of this scenario is the passing and enforcement of the Es...
...vidual freedoms. We can say that democracy learns from its mistakes and improves, keeping into account the changing times and customs.
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
The idea of a society where there is no freedom and the people have no rights, can be described through the warning foresights of a dystopia. In the novel, 1984, a country has lost all liberties to their government and war is commonly used as a political tool, as our government has done in the past. As our country continues down the path to becoming the dystopia described by George Orwell, it is seen that war is used as a political tool to help the government’s own agenda. By using wars to control the social views of the people, the products and wealth of the country, and the opinions of politicians and government officials, the governments of the United States and the country of Oceania can promote their own ideologies on others.
The Amendment I of the Bill of Rights is often called “the freedom of speech.” It provides a multitude of freedoms: of religion, of speech, of the press, to peacefully assemble, to petition the government. Religious freedom is vitally important to this day because it eliminates the problem of religious conflicts. Historically, many people died for their beliefs because their government only allowed and permitted one religion. T...
Whether it is acceptable for the government to restrict any of our civil liberties during times of war, is of great concern and consideration. This essay argues that sacrificing some civil liberties occasionally to keep peace, defend our nation, and silence opposition, is reasonable. Our nation has already been through times where civil liberties have been muted in order to maintain their governmental influence. With the help of outside sources, the argument for limitation of civil liberties is made compelling and engaging.
According to “Freedom of Speech” by Gerald Leinwand, Abraham Lincoln once asked, “Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its people, or too weak to maintain its own existence (7)?” This question is particularly appropriate when considering what is perhaps the most sacred of all our Constitutionally guaranteed rights, freedom of expression. Lincoln knew well the potential dangers of expression, having steered the Union through the bitterly divisive Civil War, but he held the Constitution dear enough to protect its promises whenever possible (8).
For the past several decades, lawmakers have been chipping away at certain constitutional rights. One of the most prominent, the right to bear arms, is a subject that has been brought up again and again. Why would a government want to disarm its citizens? The answer is simple. If the citiz...
The military is tasked with the duty and responsibility of protecting the nation from external attacks and managing any attacks that may happen. Over the years, countries across the world have engaged in conflicts originating from differences in policies and invasion of privacy and unfair treatment of citizens in foreign countries. In...
In the United States, free speech is protected by the First Amendment in which it states, “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion … or abridging the freedom of speech.” Now, nearly 250 years into the future, the exact thing that the Founding Fathers were afraid of is starting to happen. Today, our freedom of speech is being threatened through different forces, such as the tyranny of the majority, the protection of the minority, and the stability of the society. Now, colleges and universities in the United States today are also trying to institute a code upon its students that would bar them from exercising their right to speak freely in the name of protecting minorities from getting bullied. This brings us into
Such situation can be threatening to national security due to the exposure of all of its internal weaknesses, which the enemy takes advantages of. Democratic system of government ensures equality, and freedom for everyone while preventing exploitation and corruption, and as a return, the civilians are obligated to fulfill their responsibilities towards the country. Basically, Democracy is a bond that binds everyone regardless of beliefs and view towards issues. A short story titled “Three Sons and a Bundle of Sticks” effectively demonstrates the power of democracy. Similar to the story, it is easier to break a nation when its divided, but unity creates a force of
In comparing the average citizen in a democratic nation, say the United States, to that of a non-democratic nation, for instance Egypt, it will be found that the citizen in the democratic nation is generally better off – free of persecution, free from fear of the authorities, and free to express his opinions on governmental matters. And while national conflicts occur everywhere, incidents like violent revolts have shown to be more prevalent in nations where citizens are not allowed to choose who governs them. It is slightly paradoxical that democracy, so inherently flawed in theory, can lead to such successful outcomes in practice. The question, then, becomes: “If democracy has so many weaknesses, why does it work?”
Freedom of speech cannot be considered an absolute freedom, and even society and the legal system recognize the boundaries or general situations where the speech should not be protected. Along with rights comes civil responsib...