Monday, July 12, 2004
The Patriot Act and Civil Liberties
The House defeated by a margin of one vote (actually deadlocked) a measure to restrict the government's right to demand library records under the Patriot Act. This has always been one of the most controversial aspects of the act. Many Representatives in both parties hoped that it could be chipped away at, but the effort failed. We can take comfort in the fact that Congress has still not been willing to extend the term of the Patriot Act as the President has requested.
Unfortunately, the government's security measures through this Act, as well as in countless other ways relating to security, such as the holding of suspects indefinitely, have been at least as great a threat to our freedoms as the efforts of al-Qaida. If al-Qaida wants to attack our way of life, in this respect at least they have succeeded very well.
Yet there is no doubt that in the fight against terrorism, we will have to question whether certain freedoms can be maintained at the level to which we have become accustomed. This leads us to the question as to which fundamental rights are most important, that is to the question as to where we should we draw the line against the invasions of the security folk.
I believe that I have addressed this issue previously in this blog. But let me again suggest a guiding principle: There is more legitimate room to restrict freedoms of expression and association than there is room to restrict freedoms of thought and conscience and privacy. There are many types of "speech" (including writings, Internet web sites etc.) calling for violence against others or presenting ways to harm others (bomb manufacture, chemical weapon formulas etc.) that may reasonably be interpreted as representing immediate threats to society. In times of crisis, these should be restricted. There is, however, little legitimate reason to control or interfere with the private thoughts of people or their reading habits. One thinks and reads and listens in order to understand. It is impossible to know whether an individual's activities in these areas are directed against hurting others: they may or may not be. If I read about how to concoct a biological weapon on the Internet, I may be trying to understand the topic or simply to find out the type of information that is "out there". But if I express to others in a public manner the thought that all Jews or Muslims should be killed, or if I put my favorite bomb formulas on the Internet, I am acting in ways that are much more questionable, that can more directly harm others, and that society should consider restricting in its own defense.
The threats to libraries and library patrons incorporated in the Patriot Act fall into the category of threats against freedom of thought that should be restricted only in the most extreme circumstances.
The House defeated by a margin of one vote (actually deadlocked) a measure to restrict the government's right to demand library records under the Patriot Act. This has always been one of the most controversial aspects of the act. Many Representatives in both parties hoped that it could be chipped away at, but the effort failed. We can take comfort in the fact that Congress has still not been willing to extend the term of the Patriot Act as the President has requested.
Unfortunately, the government's security measures through this Act, as well as in countless other ways relating to security, such as the holding of suspects indefinitely, have been at least as great a threat to our freedoms as the efforts of al-Qaida. If al-Qaida wants to attack our way of life, in this respect at least they have succeeded very well.
Yet there is no doubt that in the fight against terrorism, we will have to question whether certain freedoms can be maintained at the level to which we have become accustomed. This leads us to the question as to which fundamental rights are most important, that is to the question as to where we should we draw the line against the invasions of the security folk.
I believe that I have addressed this issue previously in this blog. But let me again suggest a guiding principle: There is more legitimate room to restrict freedoms of expression and association than there is room to restrict freedoms of thought and conscience and privacy. There are many types of "speech" (including writings, Internet web sites etc.) calling for violence against others or presenting ways to harm others (bomb manufacture, chemical weapon formulas etc.) that may reasonably be interpreted as representing immediate threats to society. In times of crisis, these should be restricted. There is, however, little legitimate reason to control or interfere with the private thoughts of people or their reading habits. One thinks and reads and listens in order to understand. It is impossible to know whether an individual's activities in these areas are directed against hurting others: they may or may not be. If I read about how to concoct a biological weapon on the Internet, I may be trying to understand the topic or simply to find out the type of information that is "out there". But if I express to others in a public manner the thought that all Jews or Muslims should be killed, or if I put my favorite bomb formulas on the Internet, I am acting in ways that are much more questionable, that can more directly harm others, and that society should consider restricting in its own defense.
The threats to libraries and library patrons incorporated in the Patriot Act fall into the category of threats against freedom of thought that should be restricted only in the most extreme circumstances.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
