Freedom

As with any government, there is the necessity of an economy, or else the government would fail
because economy is one of the basic necessities of a government. With a democracy like we have in a
country of our size, managing this economy becomes a big problem. One important factor is; In a
country based on freedom, how much are we willing to give up to keep the economy stable? None? A
little bit? All of it? The answer is not as simple as any of those. If nothing is given up, then we will get
nowhere. There would be no regulations and no control. Everything would be in this person’s view, or
that person’s view, and there would be no way of making sure that there was any consistency. Let’s use
the FDA as an example. If there was no regulation, then not only would the FDA not exist, but nothing
would be known about the effects of hundreds of drugs, and many people would be either sick or dead
because they didn’t know if a drug was safe or not when they bought it off of the shelf because, once
again, of no regulation. If some of our freedom is given up, then we can get somewhere. If we are willing
to give some freedom up, then we can give that freedom to certain groups and organizations that have
the facilities, knowledge, and technology to help keep us safe and healthy (FDA), employed (AFL), living
in a clean environment (EPA), and to allow us to hold on to more of our money (ICC). If all of our
freedom is given up, then we have lost the meaning for which the pilgrims sailed to America. To go
somewhere where they could think for themselves and not be told what to do or how to live. If we gave
all of our freedom, then we would no longer be a Democracy. We would live in a nation where we are
told what is best for us and what we should and should not do. We would all be treated like children and
the politicians and the rich would become the aristocracy of ages ago. It would be to nobody’s benefit to
give up all freedom.

Freedom is often spoken of in what can be referred to as a "loose sense". One country has more
freedom than another; a twenty-one year old has more freedom than a fifteen year old, but what
exactly does this word, which is so often flippantly used, mean? Or, if this conclusion cannot be reached,
what does it not mean? For different people it may mean different things, but there has to be an
equilibrium that can be reached in order to determine the meaning of freedom itself. In one form,
freedom can mean that a person has "exemption from an obligation."* If only the root (free) is looked
at, it can be interpreted that one is "not under the control or power of another."*

Freedom is the exemption from control by some other person, or from arbitrary restriction of specific
defined rights like Worship, or Speech. Liberty is the sum of the rights possessed in common by the
people of a community/state/nation as they apply to its government, and/or the expectation that a
nation's people have of exemption from control by a foreign power. Freedoms are things that people
“EXTRACT” from their government; Liberty is less derivative, more formative; a thing “granted” by the
people to the people in common. The ability to assemble, for instance, while commonly thought of as a
freedom, is really an aspect of liberty. Freedoms end when they encounter a contrary freedom of
another person. You are free to smoke, until you encounter my freedom not to inhale your smoke.
Liberty lacks that distinction: my liberty never contradicts or limits yours. Conservatives traditionally
support Liberty, but they may tend to be pliant about certain freedoms, aware as they are to the
potentional dissonance.
The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof [of
religion]." However, the free exercise of religion is absolute only in terms of belief. There is no total
freedom in regard to action. While law cannot establish belief, law can limit actions. Government does
have authority to uphold law and order, otherwise society has social anarchy. On the other hand,
government is limited in regard to making certain laws, otherwise society has total tyranny. One
limitation placed on government prohibits laws for the mind. Thomas Jefferson said, "I have sworn upon
the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man"(Encarta
Encyclopedia ’99). Also, James Madison said, "The Religion then of every man must be left to the
conviction and conscience of every man" (Encarta Encyclopedia ’99).

Freedom
By definition, censorship is the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are “offensive,” it happens
whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal, political, or moral values on others. Internet
censorship is a controversial issue that requires careful thought in order to have a well-formed opinion.
It has become a hot topic in the Media and countries that are currently seeking this type of censorship.
Many believe censoring the Internet is a violation of our rights. Perhaps, by sharing my thoughts and
ideas I can shed some light on this subject. Internet censorship and the censorship tool known as
labeling is unrealistic and unnecessary because it is a parent’s responsibility to know what their children
are accessing and how to explain any difficult situations that may arise because of their children’s
Internet use.
Labeling is a type of rating system that informs the viewer what type on contact lies ahead and is
certainly not effective in screening people who are accessing a page. Many censorship classifications
systems like labeling are now in use. In many countries the use of these systems is currently under
scrutiny to see if they are necessary or even effective. This type of censorship is presumably intended to
keep questionable material out of the reach of children. The way labeling works is on the first page of a
domain; it informs the user of the type of material that is about to be accessed. To continue, one must
agree to view the page by clicking the enter button. If the editor of each web page were forced to rate
their sites, what or where would the criteria come from? Furthermore, if it was decided an outside
source should rate each new page, how could they possibly sort through the thousands of new sites per
week, or even the billions of WebPages that already exist. Internet Access Controls Without Censorship,
also known as PICS, was developed for the purpose of blocking access to websites containing potentially
harmful material on the Internet within government, schools, libraries, and workplaces. Their main
objective is to develop a censorship system that can filter out material that is specified by the user. The
purpose of a system like this is primarily to protect children. The problem with this type of censorship is
this: where there’s a will there is a way, and I believe this holds true in the case. According to PICS, most
children may be prevented from viewing restricted material at home but these restrictions would only
be in effect on a computer that the software is installed on. Also, material that would undoubtedly be
blocked by parents is easily obtainable from the nearest Barnes and Noble Bookstore. Internet
censorship does not block all material that is available to today’s youth. Books, magazines, movies, and
everyday experiences all contain potentially harmful material. Furthermore, information is still available
to some people; Internet censorship is not really censorship because the material is not actually
prevented from being published.
Censoring the Internet also negatively affects students in particular. Technology is becoming a necessity
in everybody’s daily life by allowing easy access to information. Many students turn to the Internet for
information when writing for class assignments. By censoring the Internet, students may find it difficult
to research events from the past or even the present for that matter. All public schools and libraries are
now federally regulated to have some type of Internet filter installed on their Internet server. American
Journalism Review explained how these types of programs filter out key words, phrases, certain
websites, and even news articles. Most of the time, users are not aware of the type of material that is
being blocked. This is due to the fact that the “black lists,” a list containing the information to block, is
stored on an outside server and are updated frequently. Students have the right to know the details
about what they are writing, not just the bits and pieces filtering software finds fit. It is important to be
educated on past events; no matter how unpleasant they may be. In order for young people to
understand the complexities of life and gain a better understanding of the world around them they must
have complete access to news, articles, online databases, and reference sites.
Some Supporters of Internet Censorship say that it is necessary because children could be adversely
affected by material they see. If this were true, must we take actions to protest the teaching of History
in schools? Children begin to learn about complex issues and events of the past at an earlier age. These
issues are taught in public schools everyday. In my opinion, the answer to protecting today’s youth from
interaction with unwholesome material is the responsibility of the parents.