“The government has a right to know what people are reading so they may determine who might be a threat.”
First of all, the first amendment of the Constitution states that all people are entitled to the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. In a democratic state, the free exchange of ideas is essential in order for citizens to be able to make informed decisions. If the government restricts this privilege, it could lead to corruption and ignorance on the part of the citizens. Second, the content that people read does not necessarily predict their actions or make them a threat in any way. For example, if I was interested in science and I was browsing the internet, I might read about how to create a bomb. The government might think that I’m a threat to other people and that I want to destroy something, when in fact I was only interested in the scientific aspect of the article. What if I was reading a book about Che Guevara or Fidel Castro? Does that mean I’m planning a revolution against the United States? Or am I just interested in what factors led to revolutions in other countries? Even if the government did have the right to know what people are reading, they would in no way be able to verify who might or might not be a threat to our country.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I agree with you to a point. It is unfair to label someone or determine someone's intentions based on their reading, but it's not entirely inaccurate. A lot of times what people read impacts their decisions or opinions, and if it doesn't, their opinion already correlates with the reading material. Not to say that the government should be able to control what we read, or that it is by any means a foolproof method for pointing out terrorists. Part of freedom of the press is that people are also free to read the material that is wretten. And if the government needs ways to find threats, what people read isn't the most reliable source of information. My point is that what people read isn't entirely random. Their intentions and personalities do play into it.
~Audrey
I completely agree. It wouldn't make sense for the government to arrest someone or consider them a "threat" just because someone is researching something based on true curiosity; it may not even be them, just someone using their computer, etc. If the government peers into every detail of everyone's lives, no one would be able to think for themselves without the constant fear or being arrested for saying or writing the wrong thing.
-Mariama
I agree with you Kate, the fact that the government (or any other privilaged body) could control what we do or don't read through coercion creates far more problems that it claims to alleviate. If what you read becomes pertinent to if you are a good citizen then the government absolutely has control over it what it's citizens think (through what they have been exposed to) and how they act. Corruption is a human flaw, if that kind of power is given it will not be used in the best interests of the citizens, but in the best interests of those who hold power.
-Paige
I agree with your argument. In order to take a stand point on something, you have to know and understand information from all point of views. Most people aren't raised in an environment that explains all sides, so some choose to educate themselves by reading books. They might not agree with what they are reading, but it is important to understand where other people are coming from, in order to form your personal opinion. Without knowing why you are reading it, the government shouldn't be able to label you a threat, just from a book you are reading.
-Laura
i agree with your point also. how could a person live without fear if thier every move is being monitered? so many people wouldn't accomplish any personal goals with the fear of being punished for researching something out of curiosity.
-Rachel Lee
Post #2: "To assure our country's freedom, the government should be able to spy on its citizens."
I personally believe that if the government wants to put cameras or something like telescreens in public places in order to try and catch criminals, that would be fine. But to force every citizen in the country to have a telescreen glued to their wall, watching their every move and listening to every word they say,(like in "1984") is not an okay way to spy on citizens. Privacy is granted to every citizen by the Constitution, so what people do in their own private homes is something that the government should not be allowed to keep tabs on.
oh that was my other post.
Kate Collins
yes your a fricken genious!
amazing " if the government needs ways to find threats, what people read isn't the most reliable source of information"
Justine Freeman
Post a Comment