Should the government only restrict an individual’s freedom in order to prevent harm to others?

Since the 9/11 attacks, concerns about the fine line between safety and privacy have arisen. It all began after the Patriot Act was enacted by the government to protect the safety of our country. One of its most controversial sections is section 215 which allows access to records and other tangible items under FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). Many Americans argue its right for the government to have access to certain personal information for the safety of the country. Others allege this goes against the fourth amendment of the constitution which states people are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. However, it does not protect against all searches and seizures, but only those that are thought unreasonable under the law.

We expect our government to pass and enforce laws that protect our safety, but who gets to decide what defines safety? Drinking large sodas is unhealthy, but does the government have the right to ban us from guzzling down a two liter? Does the government have the right to outlaw burkas because they disagree with Muslim values

As citizens, we have a moral responsibility to not only do the right thing for ourselves, but for the others around us. Therefore, if we secede our morals to the state, even though it does not define who

The 4th amendment protects the citizens of the U.S. rights against unlawful search and seizure. This includes building a database of information that can be retrieved at any time for any reason just for the sake of collecting information. This gives the government access to personal information without the need of a warrant, just to “look into” someone’s life. If this is okay for the government to do, what is next? Personalized RFID tags for every individual who comes into the US? This would allow the government to secure the country by knowing where every individual is located in the country. Where is invading others privacy okay for the sake of securing the country from

Next, the government needs to create a new law or update the Fourth Amendment because in actuality, everyone is violating that amendment. For more clarification, the Fourth Amendment states that you do not have a right to privacy in public places (Smith). Basically, once one steps outside their house anyone can watch him or her. In addition, in the Amendment it states, Americans must explain to the court how their privacy interest has been invaded (Calo 34). Every citizen has the right to technology and can resist surveillance, although, the technologies that are being used lack usability which can turn the user into more of a target. Americans have the right to protest against government surveillance. They can even vote for privacy, friendly

In the Denver Posts editorial "Putting up with Hate", the first amendment right of Americans is seriously discussed. A case over funeral protesting reached the Supreme Court. The issue was that a church group traveled to a funeral of a deceased soldier to protest it. The reasons were not because of the soldiers individual actions but because he had served in the army. This sparked the debate on whether this group should be allowed to do what they did. The dispute was whether the first amendment should be protected at all times even when it is a difficult price to pay. The Supreme Court ruled that the first amendment right will be protected at all times. The argument against that was if the speech caused sorrow, it should be ruled illegal. The Supreme Court stated that if they were to stifle the speech of the protesters that it would spark public debate on many other things. The Denver Post also states that the Supreme Court ruled that the protestors obeyed police laws which is staying at least 1,000 feet away from feet from the sight of the funeral.

right and what I think is wrong, but the well being of the public has to be

There is a small amount of disagreement over whether or not the US constitution protects freedom for the average American citizen – whilst many Americans feel that the constitution formally protects their liberties (for example: the first amendment guarantees the rights of Americans to their freedom of speech) others believe that the codified constitution is unnecessary and would point to nations like the United Kingdom (that do not have a codified constitution) that operate reasonably efficiently and have other methods of protecting the rights of the average person.

Firstly, Mill believes that individual liberty is instrumental in the attainment of truth. No one can claim an infallibility of knowledge or a definite truth. Falsehoods are often sprinkled with specks of truth; and truth may exists as half-truths held by different people, and it is only through controversy that the truth in the parts can be unified into a larger canvas of the ultimate truth. If one's actions were to be censored completely, society would lose those specks of truth amongst the falsehoods, which would be disadvantageous to society.

What if tomorrow’s news headline read, “U.S. GOVERNMENT BANS THE SALE OF KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUTS?” How would the country react? According to a study released by the National Center for Health Statistics (2008), “32.7% of American adults were overweight…an additional 34.3% were obese, and that 5.9% were extremely obese” (McGuinness 43). Americans are overweight and obesity is the cause of tens of thousands of preventable deaths in the nation each year (McGuinness 42). The nation is suffering a public health crisis due to overconsumption of nutritionally void food and beverages where “unhealthy eating and sedentary living has become the societal norm” (McGuinness 46). Some believe that the government should intervene by regulating American’s diets; however, others maintain that government intervention would set a dangerous precedent by undermining individual freedoms. Allowing the government to intervene is a slippery slope and could potentially lead to more intrusive actions (“Slippery Slope” 1). Instead of abrogating personal choice the government should re-evaluate the support it gives to institutions that contribute to the obesity epidemic.

I negate the resolution, "Resolved: When the United States is engaged in military conflict, national security ought to supercede conflicting claims of individual rights. My value for the round is Human Dignity, or what can be defined as a respect for the individual and his or her rights and virtues. John Stuart Mill states that "Everyone who receive the protection of society owes a return for the benefit... but not to the point that it violates constituted rights." Thus those rights which are the fundamentals of human dignity must be maintained. No fundamental goal should ever undermine this fundamental goal. The criteria which must consistently achieve is the maintenance of a legitimate government, or a govt. that maximizes the rights of

Place yourself in the safety and comfort of your home, under the belief that “everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property” (Department of International Law), searching, emailing, and talking about things that may be frowned upon by others. Now imagine the raw feelings of fear and deception that would wash over you upon seeing Edward Snowden’s statement on how “the U.S. government is destroying privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they 're secretly building.” You may initially feel betrayed, but Obama formally announced that the NSA acts solely in the name of safety right? Have we begun to sacrifice the freedom and

Mill uses the Harm Principle to identify his argument for freedom of speech. The Harm Principle explains that the government are only justified in interfering with individuals who express their views if only their views cause harm to others. If a person’s actions only affect himself, then society, which includes the government should not be able to stop a person from doing what he wants. Three ideas helped shape the harm principle. The first idea, Mill states that the harm principle is composed of the liberty of expressing and publishing opinions as being important as the liberty of thought, which

Government has a legitimate concern to exercise its authority to protect society and the general public from behavior of individuals and government also has a limited right to exercise paternalistic authority to limit and regulate the types of risks to which individuals can expose themselves. For that reason, laws that criminalize drunk driving, for just one example, are completely justified. Otherwise, irresponsible personal behavior could put innocent people at great risk.

Should the government have the right to interfere in our private lives? Democracy guarantees freedom. One might then argue that a government should allow people to act according to their own free will. But there are two sides to every coin. Absolute independence might not lead to anything productive in an interdependent society as ours. There needs to be a basic framework of rules and guidelines to which all participants in that society agree to.