I disagree with this statement after reading the book. In Orwell's 1984, the inner party spies on members of the outer party via devices called telescreens. The purpose of these screens is opposite of 'assuring freedom' as the statement suggests. Instead, the party uses the telescreens to weed out those who oppose them, and therefore denying freedom of expression to all outer party members. Winston's character provides us with a good example of this. In the beginning of the story, Winston lived in constant fear of the monitors of his telescreen, and he could not speak or even move freely in his own home. "Winston kept his back turned to the telescreen. It was safer; though, as he well knew, even a back can be revealing." (3). Nearing the end of Book Two, as Winston is captured, it becomes even more apparent that the surveillance was not designed to promote his freedom. For expressing freedom of choice (by choosing to be with Julia) and freedom of speech (by discussing with her the contents of Goldstein's Book), he and Julia are captured and punished. Surveillance by telescreens was not designed to protect the freedom of those it surveyed.
Any government's goal, as was the goal of the Party, is to increase and maintain its power. So, the government should not be allowed to spy on its citizens as the Party did with the telescreens under the guise of protecting freedom. After a time, it is inevitable that the spying government would cease to uphold the humanitarian purpose it began with, and instead revert to its nature and use its ability to spy to consolidate and increase its power. Inevitably, no matter how noble the original cause, the government's surveillance of the people would gravitate toward the extremem illustrated by the telescreens in 1984.
If the government cannot possibly maintain its claim of 'spying to protect the people's freedoms' it should not be able to claim that it will do so in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree! After reading 1984, the government with their tele-screens, etc. was truly frightening. Is that even considered freedom? Could someone even justify that as freedom? While they're trying to "protect" you from threats, they'd always be watching you. It's a violation of numerous laws for something that could "potentially" happen.
-Mariama
I agree. I think that it is inevitable that eventually a government will get ideas of using this sort of device for the wrong reasons. Even if this is not the original use and there were safeguards to prevent spying on law abiding citizens, eventually somebody would find a way to circumvent or bypass these safeguards and our freedom would be in jeopardy.
One of the prime ways this would be used is, as in 1984, to seek out revolutionaries.
Eric Lombardo
I agree completely, and the logic that you use is wonderful. Why allow the government destroy privacy with spying if they are only going to do it for their own good? It makes no sense to allow the government to spy on the people, even if it is "for their own good," because who determines if it's good for the people? The government. If spying is happening, freedom does not exist.
-Megan Flood
Post a Comment