Freedom vs Security

In my last post I touched on the concept that we routinely sacrifice personal freedom for various benefits.  For instance, we regard freedom of speech very highly, but accept the restriction that we can't maliciously lie about another (libel), or cause a panic in a closed setting by yelling Fire.  Our freedom of speech is regulated by more important societal needs, especially when those overall needs are related to preventing anarchy and/or lawlessness.

In fact, one might easily argue that there are/have been legal exceptions to every amendment ratified to the Constitution (except perhaps the third), either due to an temporary emergency or to preserve a freedom (or prevent a larger, more far-reaching public catastrophe) or simply because interpretations change as societal norms change.  In other words, no right is absolute.

As indicated above, all speech is not protected under the first amendment; hate speech being another example.  And the separation of church and state which has evolved from the notion that government must not establish a religion is continually being challenged by those who believe that we are a Christian nation which somehow grants approval to discriminate those of non-Christian beliefs whether by making laws that ban travelers from "Muslim" countries, or justifying even worse behavior against those of this faith due to the horrible actions of a few who adhere to a fundamental/radical version of the faith. 

The 2nd amendment does not (to my knowledge) allow for the ownership of tanks, bazookas, or other weapons deemed unfit or unsafe in the hands of non-military persons. 

The 4th amendment has been strengthened or weakened by Supreme Court decisions over the years, depending on the liberal or conservative leaning of that particular Court.

The 5th amendment was routinely ignored in police interrogation rooms before the Miranda ruling of 1966. 

The 6th amendment which guarantees a speedy trial by an impartial jury might be considered one of the most violated of the amendments if you count the current backlog in many judicial courts, and the history of lynchings in the South in the early 20th century. 

The 7th amendment is one of the few parts of the Bill of Rights not to be incorporated (applied to) the states which probably means that it is the least used and useful of the amendments. 

The 8th amendment has been used to sue against over-crowding in prisons and the use of the death penalty, but since both still exist, it is not an absolute. 

The 9th amendment, which states that there are other fundamental rights not enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, has been used to overturn state laws forbidding contraception as an infringement of marital privacy, as a basis for Roe vs Wade which overturned a Texas law which made it a crime for a woman to obtain an abortion, and a Pennsylvania law that made it a crime to obtain an abortion without spousal consent.  Obviously, this amendment will be under scrutiny in the coming decade with the appointment of a new justice of the Supreme Court.

The 10th amendment, which can be referred to as the states rights amendment, will also be more in the spotlight should the new dynamic of the SCOTUS lean towards a more traditional interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  How far will it go to allow states to pass laws that other states find illegal, and which freedoms will those states attempt to restrict will depend on how far right the Court turns, especially in the areas of privacy, workers' rights, and the separation of church and state.

In the end, the real question is not what freedoms are we willing to regulate, but how far should we regulate them, who should we allowed to decide the breadth of those restrictions, and, most importantly, which freedoms are we willing to trade for enhanced safety and affluence.

For instance, we all believe in innocence until proven guilty, but we routinely relinquish that right by having to disprove our guilt by taking a urine or drug test as a pre-condition for employment.  One's word that he doesn't take illegal drugs is not sufficient, regardless of whether that person has a history of drug use or not.  We are guilty, until we prove otherwise. 

History provides many examples of a populace willing to deny basic freedoms, especially to those considered to be "others", as a way to establish blame for their national problems, or feel better that those problems are being addressed.  Then, once the screw is turned, another group is labelled undesirable, then another, and pretty soon no one is immune from potential condemnation, whether by physical evidence, mere association, or lack of adherence to the laws which demonize the scapegoats.

But what about trading freedoms for a truly better outcome.  I wrote a story called The Archives (http://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/06/archives.html) which depicts a world at peace but a peace based on a lie.

Remember, there have been 17 more amendments to the Constitution since the original 10, one which reversed the ruling of another (prohibition), one which granted the right to vote for women (before that, most states did not allow women to vote, but some did), one which limits the president to two consecutive terms, one which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, and a number of others which we may take for granted today but which represented illegal activities before their enactment.

Would we be willing to sacrifice the rules which hire most government employees without respect to political affiliation, so that a new government could truly change policies?

Or end the lifetime appointment of certain justices so new courts can be established with each new administration?

Or term limits for Congress or no term limit for the president?

Or the requirement that there be a presidential election, even in times of national crisis?

Or the restriction of the press to publish news not sanctioned by the government?

How readily would a nation, weary of tough times, or convinced that tough times, real or imagined, could be fixed by giving up just a bit of freedom, succumb to such a proposition if the proposal used phrases which engender patriotism and loyalty, while establishing black and white choices as to who is US and who is THEM? How easy is it for a nation to sacrifice the freedom of someone else to enhance that of themselves?

It wasn't that long ago that a great nation of proud people made such a choice, creating the worst scourge of death in modern times.  Civilized people, tempted by easy answers to complex problems, national pride, and conscious and sub-conscious prejudice by a visionary with all the answers to all the problems. 

Who knew that freedom was so complicated?