NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... f instability. When a majority of the members of a society believe their well being is seriously threatened by the actions of an overly-permissive or liberal authority, it is easy to see how someone like Adolf Hitler, for example, can gain political power by assuring the majority that with the right authority, he could fix the problem. On the other hand, when authority becomes overly oppressive, it can lead to a revolution, as happened in Russia in 1917 or in America in 1776.
The balance between government authority and individual freedom has been an issue since the formation of societies. To live as a perfectly free human being means putting ones safety, needs, and desires before those of anyone else. People first formed into societies because they recognized that the strength of the group provided them greater security. There was a price for this, however, which was giving up some individual freedom of choice and action. The paper raises the issues of the impact of change on this balance. Changes like the Internet and the global rise of terrorism have brought this into the spotlight.
The author was almost clairvoyant in predicting that a terrorist group, with relative ease, [could] inflict great harm on the mechanisms of society. It can also cause a historical reaction on the part of the governments and courts. The 1968 federal anti-riot statute is insignificant when compared to the anti-terrorist laws and regulations of today. The paper is almost frighteningly foretelling in its questioning of airline safety in relation to a search resulting from probable cause. In light of 9 / 11, it is now apparent that a majority of citizens are willing to trade their right to freedom from unreasonable search to increase their personal safety and security. The paper also points out the power the media has to influence and shape society, and that the media may contribute to disorder by exaggerating both mood and event.
This may have been an open argument in 1974, but in 2002, there can be no doubt about this issue. The network spectacle on election night, November 2000, without a doubt influenced potential voters across the country either to vote or to stay away from the polls, and may have affected the election results. Over the last three decades, examination of the 1968 Tet Offensive in Vietnam has proven what a critical influence news reporting had on changing public opinion about that war. It has also been shown that those news reports were almost totally mistaken in casting what was an overwhelming military victory for the U. S. and U.
S. -supported Vietnamese forces, as a defeat. The military learned the lesson of Vietnam well, and as the paper predicted, the government closely controlled and censored news reports during the Gulf War and, most recently, in Afghanistan. Since 1974, news outlets have come under increasing pressure to produce viewership and increase income for their owners. So is it surprising that the motivation to exaggerate or make news sometimes becomes too great to resist for those who want to further their careers?
The paper focuses on government intrusion as a great danger to individual freedoms. We see today, however, that our personal freedom from intrusion appears to be at least equally threatened by the use or theft of our personal information by commercial interests or by cyber-criminals. Our government is in a difficult position regarding how much control should be exercised over the World Wide Web in light of these dangers. This is another aspect of the balancing act that the government and the Supreme Court must soon address.
In a further discussion of the control / freedom balance, the paper cites the theory of Professor Lynne Iglitzen that violence is contained in the fabric of society, and society should enforce a humane totalitarianism to employee positive rather than negative controls. This view seems contrary to the theory that violence is inherent in human nature, rather than in society, meaning the need of the individual to survive and to succeed is the motivation for violence. When the needs of two or more individuals conflict over resources that are insufficient to fill those needs, violence is the result. Society, on the other hand, provides a system for the mutual satisfaction of needs.
Resources, however, are not unlimited, so the rules of society rarely result in a win-win scenario. When the expectations of the members of a society become too self-focused, conflicts between freedom and authority are inevitable. Modern Western societies, especially the United States, have worked toward the goal of inclusiveness, that is, forcing everyone to conform, rather than excluding those who wont. If we accept the notion that societies are formed for mutual benefit and security, and that the price to the individual is the surrender of some freedom, then it must be acknowledged that security and freedom are inversely proportional. To insist on the full exercise of individual freedom will, in effect, exclude us from participating in society. The view that is common in the United States, that rights are an entitlement not connected to social responsibility, puts society in severe danger.
Society cannot exist without the support of its members. To think otherwise gives truth to the view attributed to B. F. Skinner that there is no general acceptance of what a Good Society is, so coercion and control are necessary to stifle anti-social behavior patterns.
This would be true if one accepts the idea that society must be all-inclusive. If, on the other hand, a society clearly states its values in a document like the Constitution, then it becomes the choice of each individual to accept those values and choose to participate. If we completely accept the authors claim that science has shown, with increasing clarity, that humans act as they do not because of free will, but because of the environment in which they survive, then we reduce humanity to animal level, capable of acting only through instinct and conditioning. If this is true, the discussion of individual freedom is unnecessary. Control is then the only issue.
There can be no argument against the authors view of change being a critical consideration in the balance between government and freedom. To say that the world has entered an era unlike that of any time in the past, however, seems rather futile. No time has been like any other time, and to say we are facing rapid change when no other generation has is simply not true. While clearly different, the Industrial Revolution perhaps changed life, for good or bad, more than our technological revolution. What we must realize in order for our society to survive any change is that the foundation of society, meaning human nature, does not change. That is the basis for behavior and for the actions of society.
When we, our government, and our courts begin to think otherwise is when problems arise. Trends do not necessarily continue in a straight line. It is the responsibility of our government and our courts to apply the basic values of our society to new conditions. Rather than deciding how society is to fit into a changing environment, our government needs to focus on how changes can benefit our society.
If the conclusion of the paper is that rapid developments in technology demand a reevaluation of civil rights and liberties under the Constitution, and greater activism by the Supreme Court, we must not overlook the fact that technology is merely an extension of human capabilities. Rather than a fundamental reevaluation of Constitutional freedoms, what is needed is a Supreme Court that does not misinterpret those fundamental freedoms. Fundamental does not mean absolute. We have given up some freedom to be Americans. That is the price we pay to live in a society residing in a dangerous world.
Free research essays on topics related to: courts, news reports, individual freedom, supreme court, human nature
Research essay sample on Individual Freedom Supreme Court
