Amazon.com Widgets

Do you think the protection of domestic order and safety justifies the curtailment of First Amendment rights?

  • No responses have been submitted.
  • Trading liberty for safety is absurd

    Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said "He who trades liberty for security deserves neither." Sacrificing your freedoms in order to fend off the shadowy force the government claims to exist is absolutely not an option. It is completely wrong for the government to erode the freedoms of or intrude upon the privacy of its citizens under the threat of "terrorism." This is especially true when the threat is wildly overblown which is precisely what the US government has done over the past decade and change.

  • That's not freedom.

    No, I do not think that the protection of domestic order and safety justifies the curtailment of First Amendment rights, because people are not living in a free society if they cannot do something so basic as speak their mind. One of the founding fathers said that if we prefer security to freedom, we deserve neither.

  • First Amendment rights should never be curtailed

    Despite the fact that we have been living in extraordinary times and there are world events taking place that have no precedent in human history, nothing justifies the curtailment of first amendment rights, not even the so called protection of domestic order and safety. Who can define what this means anyway?

  • No It Doesn't

    I do not believe the protection of domestic order and safety justifies the curtailment of First Amendment rights. The United States is suppose to offer balance but it has swung in the direction of oppression. Citizens should maintain their rights and freedoms despite all else. Our government uses the excuses that it is all in the name of safety, but I assure you that is not the case.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.