Today the west has come under threat from terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, which attempt to impose their fundamentalist beliefs on free countries via terror tactics. The danger of the terrorist threat is so great as it comes not only from external nations but from within. Bombs sent by Al Qaeda recently came close to entering several Chicago synagogues, and so american citizens must be wary of the terrorist danger in their own land. In such times, I cannot support the permitting of freedom of speech if it encourages hateful and violent behavior against others in the name of a faction's cause. I do not believe anyone should be allowed to preach violence against fellow americans in the name of a supposedly "greater cause", religious or not. As it is, the dangers to national and individual security are great enough already.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Freedom's boundaries
Concepts such as the right to free speech and equal treatment for all are relatively modern ideas which have no doubt taken great importance in the minds of american citizens and other western first world nations. However, the necessary limits to such rights are less often questioned, and attempts to restrict them are often met with high opposition as people fear the loss of their freedom. Sometimes, though, I believe liberties such as freedom of speech must be restricted in dangerous time periods for the safety of a nation's people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Daniel-
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you that nobody should be able to threaten another person violently or in a way that will do someone harm. On the other hand, though, I think we need to be REALLY careful about limiting other people's rights. If we start giving the government power over a few individual freedoms, it is a lot easier for them to start taking more. Extreme terrorist groups like Al Qaeda work by taking away people's rights and scaring them into acceptance. If we start taking away rights in order to counteract them, we are not much better.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up very interesting points. Like you said, freedom of speech, assembly, etc. are relatively new. The limitations on those freedoms have yet to catch up. In a perfect world, time would allow limitations to become clear in respect to the laws they ammend. In reality, society changes faster than do the laws. If we limited certain rights today, they would not neccesarily account for the technology of tomorrow. In 2000, the US Government could not say "no Tweeting bomb threats!" I agree with Emma in that limiting rights is a difficult task. I have to disagree, though, that limiting certain speech begins to put us on the same level as terrorists. Limiting speech for the safety of a nation differs greatly from limiting speech in the name of swift destruction. Thank you both for the interesting points of view!