Alyson Mar - Part 3

"Society would be safer if we had security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals."

In very public places like the streets or malls, it'd be okay to put security cameras. People in public should be aware where they are and shouldn't be doing things they wouldn't do without knowing that. After reading the book, my opinion hasn't changed. But in public places, cameras would work because people like Winston were caught doing things against the government using spies and cameras.

Keira W. Part 3, Prompt 8 "For an idea to exist, we must have words to express it."

In the book 1984, they had examples how some people would post signs like "DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER" , and show what they expressed about "BIG BROTHER". But in their society anyone caught bashing "Big Brother" was to be put to punishment. In reality, wouldn't you think words speak louder than actions sometimes, and in this situation words mean a big thing to these people in the book. Just the whole concept of not being able to express your personal thoughts, really gets to me, because I couldn't imagine living in a society not being able to say how you feel, without getting punished. The fact of the matter is that everyone's voice should always be heard.

N-Dogg T.

"People who are a serious threat to the government should be able to be held in prison without being charged."

Before reading 1984, I disagreed with this statement. And after reading, my opinion hasn't changed one bit. I feel that people who are a serious threat to the government-in their actual actions, not just in opinion and though-should be imprisoned or controlled in some fashion. But what point is there in holding them without charging them? If they are actually a real threat, then there is something they could be charged with, so we should do so, and if they are not actually a threat, then they won't be able to be charged based on any concrete evidence and should therefore be released. In the world of 1984, Oceania, and The Party, the Party holds people in prison without actually charging them because they have committed thoughtcrime. The Party does this so they can eliminate and change people who are a threat to them merely based on opinion without actually committing a crime they could be charged for, and they also do this to demonstrate their absolute power so people will be frightened by them and submissive to them. It is against the freedom of speech and a citizen's civil rights to prosecute someone just for having bad feelings toward the government, and  to hold people in prison without charging them allows the government to do precisely that. To let the government have that kind of power, where what they say goes without any evidence or a fair trial, turns the government into an absolutist and fascist regime, if I am using the AP Euro terms we were "taught" by Mr. Docter correctly. This should not be allowed because it eliminates democracy and a citizen's individual rights.

Johannes Harkins - Part 3 - Prompt 2

"To assure our country's freedom, the government should be able to spy on its citizens."

The right to privacy is a right granted by the United States constitution. The fact that this law was clearly violated and approved by our current president makes me incredulous, given the fact that he came under almost no punishment. However a recently passed act called the "Patriot Act" allows the President to declare anyone an "enemy combatant" meaning that essentially no laws protect them. I think this is ridiculously unconstitutional and should be disregarded when speaking in terms of the prompt. I think that without a warrant, no government official should be able in intrude on the privacy of any citizen protected by the U.D. constitution.

Johannes Harkins - Part 3, Prompt 10

"The only way to prepare for peace is to prepare for war"

I am responding to this prompt because the book did not change my views.

I would like to approach this prompt in two different ways: taken out of context and placed in context with our modern world. This statement in and of itself is one that is contradictory. One cannot be peaceful by being prepared for war. It is a conflict of meaning. With the literal idea of peace in mind this prompt is entirely false. However, when taking into account the world we live today, a world of constant conflict, a country that achieved complete peace would not last long. The whole world would have to agree to peace and eliminate all violence, hate and war in all of its forms. This task is impossible. The only way a country or political body could be in a semi-permanent peaceful state would be to prepare for war by having proper defenses and an inactive army.

Jonathon Hirschi: "people who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither"

After reading 1984 and reading this questions, we all get images of Big Brother controlling our lives and the Thought Police eliminating any ideas contradicting the totalitarian rule. However, exchanging our freedoms doesn't need to be this radical and limiting. I think it is first necessary to distinguish natural rights from legal rights. Every day we give up freedoms to be a functioning member of society. By living as a part of American society, we all give up our rights to run around naked and kill people. The freedom to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. A person's freedoms cannot impede on others'. On the other hand, our legal rights are the rights given to us within society. Some people are willing to give up their right to free speech, or a right to a fair trial so they will feel safer without being exposed to disorderly people. The question is do these people deserve security and liberty. These people disregard the rights that were fought for by people in the past should be ashamed, but it is very harsh to say that they deserve neither. People like this deserve their sense of security and maybe once they get past their paranoia they can learn to appreciate that many freedoms we all live with.

Carly Haeck: "To assure our county's freedom, the government should be able to spy on its citizens."

Yes, spying on citizens would certainly weed out criminals and threats to the government, as we saw in 1984. But the act of spying takes away our country's freedom in itself. Installing telescreens in public places would be acceptable, because people surrender their privacy when going out in public. But to spy on people in their own homes is violating their rights. What constitutes as behavior worth spying on? We read how people living in Oceania were often imprisoned for talking in their sleep about rebelling against the government. Can the government really argue that unconscious babble is grounds for arrest?