The First Amendment: Security vs. Freedom
You have the right to say anything you would like, as long as you are willing to suffer the consequences. The right of free speech and press rights with the internet and social media is available to those who wish to access it. With free internet access at many locations and free computer and internet use available at places such as libraries, anyone who desires access to the internet and social media is granted access. Once on the internet and various social media’s anyone can say what is on their mind, post in their social networks opinions, and use the internet to find sources to back up their position. The social media’s alluring nature gives many users a false sense of freedom that is constantly in flux and can often be little more than an illusion.
Throughout history the United States has fallen victim to panic and hysteria during times of war and drastically amended the constitutional rights in the name of patriotism and national security. A country founded on freedom, founded as “for the people, by the people”, has demonstrated very little faith in it citizens to support its’ government. According to Etzioni trade-offs where privacy has been sacrificed are now so common that, for all practical purposes, privacy no longer exists.
Throughout the years and with each passing war citizens have lost more and more privacy. According to Moynihan with what has become known as the “Hindoo conspiracy” the U.S government indicated 105 persons were arrested under the suspicion of espionage, of these 29 were found guilty, 15 “Indians” and 14 German Americans or Germans. Just over a quarter of the people arrested were convicted, and approximately 75% innocent, leaving a large percentage of innocent people to be traumatized simply because of the origin, heritage or personal views. Further Moynihan cites historians when he speaks of a premium placed on patriotism as well as the penalties the German culture paid, books were withdrawn from the library, a conductor was stripped of his baton, and some universities revoked degrees they had conferred on distinguished Germans. At this time even conversations over the phone and in public places were mandated to be only in the English Language. The United States was becoming the very thing they were fighting.
There were many slights against the first amendment: “In 1912, feminist Margaret Sanger was arrested for giving a lecture on birth control. Trade union meetings were banned and courts routinely granted injunctions prohibiting strikes and other labor protests.” (ACLU, 2005) During World War I a person could be jailed simply handing out anti-war leaflets, peacefully protesting the war, or displaying red or black flags. “A labor leader Eugene V. Debs was sentenced to 10 years in prison under the Espionage Act for telling a rally of peaceful workers to realize they were "fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder."“ (ACLU, 2005) Even reading the First Amendment resulted in an arrest as was the case for Sinclair at a union rally. Come the time of the Vietnam war, although flag burning was still banned, public school students were allowed to wear armbands in protest of the war. (ACLU, 2005) Although progress is being made at the hands of organizations such as the ACLU the fear and hysteria of war or the possibility war often gives political refuge to those that wish to sidestep the first amendment.
In the entire history of the United States the national government has never attempted to punish opposition to government policies, except in times of war.” However, “it restricts obscenity, prohibits false advertising, limits the size of billboards, and regulates campaign contributions” (Stone 2004). A concerning issue is this trend where the government changes its policies in war time. Increases in technology have lead to many different data collection methods. Social media lures citizens into a false sense of privacy, when in fact everything a person posts carries the risk, the risk that somewhere this information is being compiled, stored, and used against them. With the alarming trend of governmental policy change during wartime, should citizens be worried that if a country they previously praised goes to war that they will end up on an agency watch list? If a war breaks out between Iran and the U.S then will everyone from Iran(or of Iranian decent), or even “sympathizers” of Iran be targeted. What if it were Ireland, France, China or Japan? You have the right to say anything you would like, as long as you are willing to risk possible present and future consequences.
According to Donner “At a time when the FBI sought to reduce criticism, it admittedly targeted no less than 1100 organizations suspected of being Communist-infiltrated, Communist-dominated, Communist fronts and so on” Donner also points out that no results need be found as the FBI can insist that clues to a bigger secretive plot have been found, failure to comply and divulge information sought can be “proof” enough for further investigation. Considering the increasing access to personal information with today’s technologies and social media, more information is available to be compiled against innocent citizens. Policies are easily side stepped or bypassed in the name of national security, counter-terrorism, and anti-espionage.
James Angelton stated it would be “Inconceivable that a secret intelligence arm of the government has to comply with all the overt orders of the government.” Who then should they answer too? Certainly policy prevents agencies from policing their own agency, how then is it determined when an agency needs policing? Martin Luther King Jr. was wire tapped by the Bureau because of alleged associations with a “communist agent” no evidence of the associates membership could be found. (Donner, 1980) A historical icon of peace who spoke in favor of non-violence was the target of an investigation.
According to American Civil Liberties Union article on Free Speech - Freedom of speech, of the press, of association, of assembly and petition this set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. The Supreme Court has written that this freedom is "the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom." Without it other fundamental rights like the right to vote would wither and die. (ACLU, 2011)
There are associations fighting to keep our freedoms such as the ACLU who focuses on protecting and expanding our freedoms of expression, association and inquiry. The ACLU is also focused on expanding the right to privacy and increasing the control that individuals have over their personal information with today’s ever growing technology and advancement. The project is currently working on a variety of issues, including political protest, freedom of expression online, privacy of electronic information, journalists’ rights, scientific freedom, and openness in the courts. The ACLU states that if they do not “come to the defense of the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us, even if their views are anti-ethical to the very freedom that the First Amendment stands for then no one’s liberty will be secure.” ("ACLU," 2011)
According to the article “Spying on First Amendment Activity - State-by-State” (2011 map): Law enforcement agencies across America continue to monitor and harass groups and individuals for doing little more than peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights. As the previous examples have shown many agencies from the FBI to local police, U.S. law enforcement agencies have a long history of spying on American citizens and infiltrating or otherwise obstructing political activist groups. ("Aclu: Spying on," 2011)
Articles such as Senators Call for Investigation into Employer Demands for Facebook Passwords, Director of National Intelligence Gains New Powers, Expands Datamining of US Citizens, Facebook Policy Changes Raises Questions About Compliance with 2011 Consent Order, EPIC Urges Court to Uphold Location Privacy in Cell Phone Tracking Case, show the unique concerns that new technologies present to policy and the first amendment. Investigations have been launched into employer’s using Facebook information to determine if applicants are eligible, a possible violation of the civil Rights Act and other federal laws. “National Counterterrorism Center, the intelligence agency officials will be able to profile and track American citizens, suspected of no crime, for up to five years,” “The FTC found that Facebook had misled users about the extent to which their personal information would be made available” In the case, In re US for Historical Cell-Site Data, the lower court held that the disclosure of historical cell phone location records without a warrant would violate the Fourth Amendment. EPIC argued that this opinion should be upheld in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Jones, because cell phone location records are collected without the knowledge or consent of users. The records in this case, EPIC argued, create a "comprehensive map of an individual’s movements, activities, and relationships, precisely the type of information that individuals reasonably and justifiably believe will remain private."
This country has gone through many changes and amendments since its’ founding. The spirit of this country strives to stay alive, and with that spirit is our freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and many other freedoms that many citizens take for granted. Society must adapt to the changing technologies of the world, these changes pose many challenges in the world of policy and law. How much freedom is one willing to give up to feel secure? How many citizens are aware of the challenges and possible pitfalls that await them within the new social media technologies. There are those that fight for freedom of expression and speech, however, historically in a time of war the government has been able to effectively side step the freedoms that are given to every citizen. This trend, that has showed itself throughout the history of the United States, shows that you are free to say what you would like, but if the political nature of the country changes, these things may be held against you. Social media stores and house more data then ever historically available on one person, what you say on the World Wide Web may be stored forever, to be brought up whenever, and possibly used to detain or bring charges against an otherwise innocent person. Just because you disagree with your country does not mean that you wish to overthrow your country, free thinking, innovation, and independence are some of the cornor stones this country was founded on. Regardless of the policies made, the agencies can easily claim national security and brush them aside, and claim some insight for a possible future threat that they cannot yet reveal. I would rather not trade my freedom for security, and in today’s technological day and age, it seems we have little choice in the matter.
References;
Donner, F. J. (1980). The age of surveillance: the aims and methods: The aims and methods of america's political intelligence system. (pp. 3-29). New York, NY:
Etzioni , (2000) The limits of privacy: Contemporary conception of privacy. (183-269) –
ACLU: Spying on first amendment activity - state-by-state. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/maps/spying-first-amendment-activity-state-state
ACLU: Protecting civil liberties in the digital age, free speech. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/
ACLU: Freedom of Expression. (2005 Oct 31). Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/freedom-expression
Stone, G. R. (2004). Perilous times: free speech in waretime from the sedition act of 178 to the war on terrorism. (1 ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.
If you like the author's in this blog check out the site www.writingliberty.com and feel free to check out the author's other books;
No comments:
Post a Comment