A secure society cannot be sustained by sacrificing freedom. In fact, most secure societies are built on enhanced freedom and liberties. People are more likely to negate social order which is based on limited freedom. Laws that are restrictive produce negative responses from members of society as they seek means and ways of beating the rules to exercise their free will. Effective are those that protect individual rights to exercise their free will. It is important to note that what is lawful is not necessary moral and vice versa. Therefore laws cannot be the yard stick of determining what is good or bad. For instance, the law may prohibit demonstration or revolt against bad governance, which sacrifices the freedom to participate in deciding the destiny of the society.
There are some instances when certain freedoms can be sacrificed to promote security. Such freedoms include the speech, movement, association. Limitation of freedom must be not only justified and short lived but should also be applicable to all members of society. Discriminative limitation of freedom only acts to alienate certain individuals or group from mainstream society which often provoke resentment and conflict. Equality in application of law and protection of freedom is more effective in promoting cohesive and secure society rather than sacrificing of freedom.
1. “Privacy, free speech, and the Patriot Act: First and fourth amendment limits on national security letters.”
There are many arguments made for the enactment of the Patriot Act to support counter terrorism effort. However, this law limits the freedom of speech and exposes the citizens to unwarranted seizure of properties. It also entrenches discriminative subjection of searches based on religious orientation. According to the article in New York University Law Review Journal, Garlinger urged that the Patriot Act has increased cases of unauthorized surveillance of individuals who are suspected of been associated with terror groups. Garlinger stated that “In each year since the Act’s passage, the FBI has requested that telephone companies and electronic communication providers (ECSPs) proffer information concerning anywhere from 16, 000 to 50, 000 people.” (1107). It is apparent that a lot of people who are not related to terror are subject to intrusion of their privacy based on suspicion. Therefore, laws limit freedom as demonstrated by the Patriotic Act.
Garlinger, Patrick. “Privacy, free speech, and the Patriot Act: First and fourth amendment limits on national security letters.” New York University Law Review. Vol 84, pp 1105-1144. Web. 2009. 25th June 2012
New York Defense Campaign. “Eroding Liberty.” Web. 2010.26th June 2012
2. “Religion and the Constitution- an Illusory Freedom”
The law does not protect the freedom of worship although it is enshrined in the constitution. There are various laws which limit the extent and nature of religious practices. It is easy to assume that that freedom of worship is not limited by the law for those who have adopted the mainstream religious believes such as Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. However, there are other religious beliefs which are restricted by the laws and classified as cults. Eburn Notes that “The freedom of religion is protected by the political process and the ‘goodwill’ of the government rather than being enshrined in the foundation document of the nation” (1). There are laws which prohibit certain religious practices which are guided by political consideration rather than the freedom of the individual believer.
Eburn, Michael. “Religion and the Constitution- an Illusory Freedom”. Web. 1990. 25th June 2012
3. “Public Employee Freedom Act”
The National Labor Relations Act denies individual employees the freedom to bargain their emplacement contract with the employer. This law makes it mandatory for the employees to use collective bargain as the only channel of negotiation their relationship with the employ. It prohibits individual workers from using their competence and skills to enter in single agreement employment agreement which may be more beneficial compared to collective bargaining. The law as denies the employees the right to choose whether to join or not join Unions. According to American Legislative Change Council report, “ if employee chooses not to join a union, he or she must accept the terms of the contract negotiated for the unionized workers in the workplace” (1). It is thus apparent that the national Labor Relations Act violates the freedom to individual bargain by making collective bargain mandatory.
American Legislative Change Council. “Public Employee Freedom Act”. Web.1999. 25th June 2012