It is possible to see the rights to free expression and privacy as being two sides of the same coin, with the right to privacy enabling ordinary individuals the autonomy and dignity to independently develop and impart their ideas, opinions and information. The right to privacy provides the space and security necessary for individuals to seek out and receive information. Both rights play an essential role in placing fundamental restraints on the exercise of power by those who possess it – governments and their agents, as well as corporate actors and public figures. The contest between free expression and privacy is particularly acute in the context of internet publishing platforms, social media networks and search engines that facilitate the
Furthermore, freedom of speech is a right given to people. The government assures they will not censor opinions when it states, “Congress shall not make no law...abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,” in the Bill of Rights, (B). The government will not interfere with people’s right to express their opinions, nor will it censor information distributed by the press. The freedoms of religion and speech are vital to American democracy because religion unites and speech enables everyone to have a voice. Freedom of speech and the press ensures that the government does not become corrupt.
He believes that “privacy is something fairly new and wasn’t even guaranteed decades ago”. He continue saying that “Our social behavior is quite damaging to privacy. Technology has outraced our social intellect”. (www.tech.firstpost.com) Hichang Cho, Milagros Rivera- Sanchez and Sun Sun Lim, 2009 from National University of Singapore had done a study on online privacy and global concern. They surveyed 1261 Internet users from five cities (Bangalore, Seoul, Singapore, Sydney and New York) to study multinational and multicultural user’s views and social responses concerning online privacy.
I believe privacy is more important when it comes to security vs privacy debate. (Solove pg 163-167) Before I continue I need to explain each aspect of this argument. First of the two aspects stated in Solove 's essay is privacy and security, and Solove believes we as citizens of the united states as individuals should care more about our privacy even if we had “nothing to hide”. When it comes to our personal information like our SS#, address, credit card#, name, date of birth, and internet activities. Most of our personal info alone is not useful but Solove states “ a problem emerges from the fusion of small bits of seemingly innocuous data.
The same principle can be applied to how we should expect freedom from interference online, on the basis that ones private actions do not harm others. The right to privacy is the right to make our own decisions, to control property against search and seizure, and to control who gets access to information about oneself. We are free to act as we choose only if our choices do no harm to others. Interference can only be imposed and justified when it is necessary to prevent actual harm to others. Mills believed a genuinely civil society must always guarentee the civil liberty of its citizens.
Censorship is quite a controversial topic and has is positive and negative outcomes to society’s around the globe. People may say it’s eliminates our freedom of speech, but some people take advantage of that freedom and should have at least some limitation for what is said on the internet. According to David French, from the National Review, he states,“...freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything...it means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate”(French). In other words, everyone should express their opinion but in a mannerly style, and that all points of view should be apprehended for everyone’s individual opinion. Censorship’s part in our society is to protect the minds of the public to prevent the violent and traumatization it can
Speech is a fundamental right and should be protected. “Think about it. It’s always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech to which you may strongly object”(mighty constitutional opposites). that is what separates the united states from a fascist country in that they protect all forms of speech.
"As Americans, we possess the right to freedoms that many other countries are unable to acquire. Being an American embodies the connotative definition of freedom and equality in the minds of those in third world countries. Many less fortunate countries suffer from tyranny because government officials have the right to violate privacy. With a violation of privacy comes a lack of free speech and expression coupled with conformed, fear stricken citizens. The founders of our land of the free implemented a measure to prevent dictatorships such as these that strip people of their individualism.
The fact that it can be perpetrated both anonymously and virtually makes it even a bigger menace. How self-defeating it is that the venerated human right of free speech is the number one encumbrance to obtaining justice for such a heinous felony. Regardless though, the prevalence of the vice continues
Moreover, individuals such as investigators, legislators, regulators and even privacy campaigner have an increased attention towards the privacy issue. For this reason, security issues in the internet have become a threat in the internet. (Loeffler 2012, p12) Furthermore, a loss in privacy can lead to a disastrous effect such as that even a complete stranger to you would be able to know all about you, from your name until your child’s name. ‘Soon, it may not be possible to go online without at least telling your device who you are. The end of anonymity on the web could be fast approaching, raising a host of questions about privacy, security and freedom.’ (Baraniuk 2013, p34-37) Almost all people did not know what will happen without privacy.