Question

as it pertains to national security, analyze the pros and cons of expanding government surveillance and give me your verdict on whether we should decrease civil liberties in the name of national security.

when it comes to freedom of speech, do you believe the free speech clause of the US Constitution grants corporations the right to unlimited campaign contributions to politicians? Analyze the pros and cons.

Answer 1

SOLUTION

GOVERNMENT SURVALLIANCE

a PROS AND CONS OF GOVERNMENT SURVELLIANCE

PROS:

1 IT MAKES A COUNTRY SAFER

When citizens are monitored 24 hours a day, they feel safer and more protected than when they are not. Take, for example, when we are at home with the children and when they are left unsupervised. The times parents are present are the safest times for the children being in home

2 IT CAUSES NO HARM TO INDIVIDUALS, YET MAKE THE COUNTRY SAFER

Surveillance does not harm anyone. A car tracker installed in your vehicle will not harm you nor will a bug installed in your phone. These methods may however work in favour of the government and lead to the discovery of the criminal activity.

3 IT DETERS CRIMINAL AND TERRORISTS

When the person is under the surveillance of the government, they tend to be the best behaviour. If terrorists discover that they have no choice of hiding from a long arm of the law, they will be demoralized and deterred .

CONS

1 INFRINGES ON THE PRIVACY OF THE CITIZEN

Every citizen has the right to privacy. This right is infringed upon the group of people in the country watching every move ,tracking or listening to your conversations.

2 GOVERNMENT USES INFORMATION GATHERED TO ITS OWN BENIFIT

Some people suspect the information gathered through surveillance of citizens is used politically by the government. Through collection of intelligence , they can predict voting patterns and use them to their advantage

3 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE EXTRA SURVEILLANCE HELPS IN CURBING CRIME

Some people claim that there is no evidence to show that the surveillance of the citizens is indeed working.

b NEED OF DECREASING CIVIL LIBERTIES

Yes, it is necessary to decrease civil liberties in the name of national securities since, the armed forces are very important for the aspect of national securities. The united states has a very strong military to ensure that the nation stays safe. In addition when threads are directed at our country there is an attempt to keep these threads safer.

c (1) PERMISSION GRANTS OF THE UNLIMITED CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICIANS

No, I don't believe that the free speech clause of the US corporations grants corporations to the unlimited campaign contributions since the federal law does not allow corporations and labor money directly to candidates or national party committees

(2) PROS

1 PROTECTS FROM THE INFLUENCE OF SPECIAL INTEREST

When people have power , then they can do whatever they retain as long as possible and also it allows people to express their criticism of those who are in interest

2 ELIMINATES COMPLLEDACTIONS

The government cannot compel your actions in such a way that you are required to speak a specific message . You stay in a control of what you are required to say in a specific message.

3 PROMOTES FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS

When a society operates in an area where a free speech is given to all, then there is more significant exchange of ideas will promptly occur.

CONS

1 FREEDOM OF SPEECH DOES NOT MEAN THE FREEDOM TO HAVE THE "ALL SPEECH"

The concept behind the freedom of speech is that you should able to express anything in a way that does not create legal consequences. Even if your option is rude or unpopular, this right gives an option to express it.

2 IT CAN SPREAD FALSE IMFORMATION

Thanks to the rise of the internet, the freedom of speech makes it easier for individuals to spread false information overnight but then pretend the data is being true.

3 FREEDOM OF SPEECH CREATES PARADOX

When we look at the modern idea of creating the foundation of freedom of speech, it really isn't free. The government is still dictating some of the things we can or cannot say.

.