Safety vs Freedom of Speech Essay

On the day of September 11, 2001, the United States faced one of the most massive terrorist attacks in history, and responded with immediate action. After the attack on the Twin Towers, President George W. Bush passed the Patriot Act, which gave the government more opportunities to pursue terrorists through the use of technology, such as computer-enabled device-tracking systems (“The USA Patriot…”). President Bush stated, “This legislation is essential not only to pursuing and punishing terrorists, but also preventing more atrocities in the hands of the evil ones. This government will enforce this law with all the urgency of a nation at war” (“President Bush…” 4). In America, at this time, many were traumatized by the loss of fellow Americans, and were counting on the government to reassure their safety. If Bush had not intensified cybersecurity, there is a chance that another massive terror attack could have taken place and put the lives of men, women, and children in jeopardy. Bush claims that America has “seen the horrors terrorists can inflict” and that the country “may never know what horrors our country was spared by the diligent and determined work of our police forces, the FBI, ATF agents, federal marshals, Custom officers, Secret Service, intelligence professionals and local law enforcement

In society today many citizens feel violated with the security methods taken by homeland security. “On September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States marked the beginning of the global war on terrorism. The methods used are justifiable as they provide protection against possible threats or attacks. This attack on U.S. soil increased surveillance of both American citizens and foreign nationals” (Andrew, C., & Walter,

In order to find truth to anything, one must make multiple suggestions, ask many questions, and sometimes ponder the unspeakable. Without doing so, there would be no process of elimination; therefore, truth would be virtually unattainable. Now, in our attempts to either find truth, express our beliefs and opinions, or generally use the rights we are given constitutionally, we are often being criticized and even reprimanded. Our freedom to voice our opinion(s) is being challenged, as critics of free speech are taking offense to what seems like anything and everything merely controversial and arguably prejudice. As people continue to strive for a nation free of prejudice and discrimination, where everyone is equal, safe and

One of the most detrimental and traumatic events of United States history involves the terrorist attacks on the day of September 11th, in 2001. September 11th is a day countless Americans will never forget. Because our nation encountered such a horrific attack, it was up to our president during the time, President George W. Bush, to address the country. Many Americans suffered loss and fear; therefore, former President George Bush’s goal was to heal and comfort the nation by persuading them to see the light within the darkness. Bush’s speech was a success because he showed America’s togetherness and solidarity by creating an emotional connection to the audience; moreover, by responding appropriately to the attacks, he presented himself with a leadership and role no one else could take.

Since the founding of the United States of America, freedom has been the basis of the governmental and ruling systems in place. Individual freedoms are protected in both the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution, and Schwartz (2009) explains that ‘public liberty ultimately enhances collective rationality—it is a path to heightening our wisdom by increasing access to pertinent information and improving decision making’ (p. 409). However, there have been many times in history when the true freedom of citizens is called into question. There has always been controversy about how much power the government should have, who is keeping the government in check, and if citizens are properly informed about what their elected governed are doing. The passing of the Patriot Act in 2001 was no exception to this controversy. The

One beautiful morning in September 2001 many people went about their day like they have before. Some off to work, or traveling for business, or to visit family, and in a blink of an eye our lives in America changed forever. We were attacked, on our own soil, not once, but four times. That fourth plane didn’t make it to its destination, thanks to the brave souls aboard that sacrificed their lives to save others. On that fateful day 2,753(NYmag) families would never be the same, as well as the rest of us that watch in disbelief. The attacks on September 11th 2001 led to something called the Patriot Act. In the days after 9/11 Congress hurried to pass a bill to give law-enforcement agencies the power to fight domestic terrorism. On October 26, President George W. Bush signed three hundred page USA Patriot Act into law (Crf.org). The USA Patriot Act of 2001 was created to prevent and catch terrorist in the United States and around the world. The contents of it has been one of great controversy in the rights of our privacy and the violation of our constitutional rights. Can we give up too much freedom to keep us safe? Where do we draw the line to keep our Country safe?

     In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks US Congress passed legislation known as the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 commonly known as the USA Patriot Act. This paper will attempt to prove that not only is the USA Patriot Act unconstitutional but many of its provisions do nothing at all to protect Americans from the dangers of terrorism.

It has been more than seventy years since the release of George Orwell’s 1984, a novel that imparts a lesson on the consequences of government overreach. However, today that novel reads like an exposé of government surveillance. Privacy and national security are two ideas competing for value on a balance; if one is more highly valued, the other carries less weight. Government desire to bolster national security by spying on its own citizens-- even the law abiding ones-- is what leads to the inverse relationship between civil liberties and security. In times of a perceived threat to the nation, national security becomes highly prized and people lose privacy. One case is terrorist attacks. 9/11 caused an understandable kneejerk reaction in Americans to bolster protection. Some of the the measures taken were observable, like greater security at airports, but others attempted to increase national security in a more intrusive way. Privacy should be more highly valued than national security, and America has reached a point where that is no longer true.

Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, once said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In America’s society today, some are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to gain protection and security over some potential threat. Especially after the events of September 11th and several attempted bombings in U.S. cities. This sacrifice of individual freedoms such as the freedom of speech, expression, the right to information, to new technologies, and so forth, for additional protection is more of a loss than a gain. Citizens of the United States deserve equal liberty and safety overall, as someone should not have to give up

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 impacted the American people without many of them realizing it. The act called for increased monitoring of computer networks, phone lines, and online history inside the United States and allowed the government to deport suspects (ACLU). What was created by the act has snaked its way into all aspects of our lives, creating a sense of order and restricting some freedom. However, some say that this imposition into our daily lives limits our freedoms and actions allowed us by the Constitution. Many interest groups voice strong resentment for the act while others try to demonstrate the strengths and triumphs of the Homeland Security Act. This paper will show the differing viewpoints of those that feel that the

“Good citizens know they’re accountable for their actions (someone has said, “My right to swing my arm ends when my fist hits your nose.”)  There are those, however, who tend to forget that they also are held accountable for their words.  That’s how laws against libel and slander are sustained.” (Zonder)  There is no way to determine what will be offensive to one person, but not the next.  “For example, many African- Americans view the American classic The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn as and example of hate speech.” (Wolfson)  Words can be very powerful.  If it is offensive, don’t read it or listen to it.  It is as simple as that.

  No matter how fervently someone believes in the justice of his cause, suppression of the free exchange of ideas is failure at best or downright wrong. The power or might behind an idea does not make the idea right. Many powerful people throughout history have been wrong. Few people, if any, would judge "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" to be subversive or wrong. In 1939 Ambassador Kennedy was so caught up in the fears of the times that he was willing to use the power of his money to protect the world against a film. When people are caught up in the movements of their time, all people must be extra zealous to guard and encourage freedom of expression. Otherwise, a mob mentality reigns, and people

The attacks on American soil that solemn day of September 11, 2001, ignited a quarrel that the grade of singular privacy, need not be given away in the hunt of grander security. The security measures in place were planned to protect our democracy and its liberties yet, they are merely eroding the very existence with the start of a socialistic paradigm. Benjamin Franklin (1759), warned more than two centuries ago: “they that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Implementing security measures comes at a cost both economically and socially. Government bureaucrats can and will utilize information for personal political objectives. The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator

The founders of the United States government tried to protect our liberty by assuring a free press, to gather and publish information without being under control or power of another, in the First Amendment to the Constitution. We are not very protected by this guarantee, so we concern ourselves on account of special interest groups that are fighting to change the freedom of expression, the right to freely represent individual thoughts, feeling and views, in order to protect their families as well as others. These groups, religious or otherwise, believe that publishing unorthodox material is an abuse of free expression under the First Amendment. As we know, the Supreme Court plays an important role in the subject of free speech and

We are blessed to live in a country that has many rights, the most important is the freedom of speech which provides an umbrella of protection over our remaining rights; however, all of our rights are under attack beginning with the First Amendment which is under constant assault by censorship.