“Should national security override free speech?”
Freedom of speech was first established in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution in 1791, and almost two centuries later, in the International Declaration of Human Rights, the UN recognised freedom of speech as a human right (reference).
The question of whether or not national security should override the freedom of speech has been, and continues to be a controversial subject, particularly among governments and law-abiding citizens.
Government secrecy plays a role in the controversy between national security and freedom of speech, and many government officials argue that secrets are kept so for a reason. But if these secrets were as heavily protected as the government claims them to be, why all the worry over breaching national security laws with the freedom of speech and expression? If the freedom of speech is a right, as the First Amendment makes it so, how can anyone justify violating that right in the name of national security? It is no secret that governments have done this in the past, and as a result many a …show more content…
Unlike America, Australia has no such law. There is no constitution stating that each Australian citizen has the right to the freedom of speech, however, the High Court has ruled that there was implied freedom of communication within the constitution. Therefore the freedom of speech is still considered a right, not a privilege.
Censorship is necessary in some cases, like the aforementioned hypothetical incident with information regarding the terrorist Osama Bin Laden, however, when it comes to censoring a person’s rights on the grounds of national security, it needs to be taken into account that every person has the right to say whatever to whomever, whenever and wherever they
Freedom of speech was first established in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution in 1791, and almost two centuries later, in the International Declaration of Human Rights, the UN recognised freedom of speech as a human right (reference).
The question of whether or not national security should override the freedom of speech has been, and continues to be a controversial subject, particularly among governments and law-abiding citizens.
Government secrecy plays a role in the controversy between national security and freedom of speech, and many government officials argue that secrets are kept so for a reason. But if these secrets were as heavily protected as the government claims them to be, why all the worry over breaching national security laws with the freedom of speech and expression? If the freedom of speech is a right, as the First Amendment makes it so, how can anyone justify violating that right in the name of national security? It is no secret that governments have done this in the past, and as a result many a …show more content…
Unlike America, Australia has no such law. There is no constitution stating that each Australian citizen has the right to the freedom of speech, however, the High Court has ruled that there was implied freedom of communication within the constitution. Therefore the freedom of speech is still considered a right, not a privilege.
Censorship is necessary in some cases, like the aforementioned hypothetical incident with information regarding the terrorist Osama Bin Laden, however, when it comes to censoring a person’s rights on the grounds of national security, it needs to be taken into account that every person has the right to say whatever to whomever, whenever and wherever they