Difference Between Individual Freedom And Public Security

As the heart of US foundation history, freedom is the core of American values and is engraved into national self-identity. The concrete forms of freedom in daily life are rights supported by the Constitution, such as freedom of speech and the right to keep one’s privacy. However, since some people utilize their freedom illegally, individual freedom is inevitably challenged by means to keep societal stability. Facing this dilemma, I believe that both individual freedom and public security should be protected, and we should try to find a balance point between the two. With proper restrictions and supervisions on restrictions, we can obtain the optimal combination of freedom and security. Neither individual freedom nor public safety can dominate
In my opinion, there are two specific requirements for laws regulating individual freedom. Firstly, we should only enact additional laws to restrict individual rights when there is clear and serious danger, and when the proposed law would be effective in solving the problem. Since the current legal system is the result of generations of court struggles, we should not change it unless there is a compelling reason. There is a case to demonstrate this criterion. After the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, one of its principle masterminds used encryption to protect files on his laptop computer as he plotted to blow up commercial airlines (Etzioni 66). After this is proven, the public would definitely support the government to decrypt files on private computers as long as they have a warrant that reasonably states that these files probably contain important information. This standard is also applicable to current problems, such as the spread of fake news on the internet and social media. Without compelling reasons and evidence that fake news is direct cause of severe social disturbance, we cannot restrict the freedom of