iFreedom: A Testament To Social Media & Surveillance

For all of America’s years as a nation, we have been protected by what’s known as the First Amendment. Given our rights endowed to us by the Constitution, the Internet is no exception. In recent years, following the fear mongering caused by terrorism and global pressure, Internet restrictions have been proposed as possible legislation. Titled “HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act” implies a suppression of one’s perspective. Any form of resistance against current invasive policy is considered “radical”. Of course, this calls for Internet surveillance, a blatant attack on civil liberties. Given the widespread use of social networking and the ease in expressing online opinions, this is an implication that social media is on a level high above updating a status and adding a friend. Congressman Ron Paul says, “Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally- protected civil liberties.”

            Of course, the effect on culture is abrasively evident. What is supposed to be an outlet of free speech and unadulterated opinions, would cause a great impact on a already-divided culture. There are people that view it as useful, the same that support the U.S. PATRIOT Act and TSA screenings, and the ones that view it as an attack on privacy. This isn’t Minority Report, and if this legislation should pass, we would be essentially committing thought crime. For example, if I put up a Libertarian-oriented Facebook status or tweet that criticizes our foreign policy, suggesting that 9/11 was a cause of “blowback”, I could potentially be put on a watchdog-list – or even worse. What if my “radical” ideas seem to be the root of what the government views as terrorism? There’s no black and white here, just gray area.

            Constitutional law protects our property wholeheartedly. Economic transactions taking place over the Internet are monitored by the PATRIOT Act, and elasticity could be applied to this proposed legislation. We are subjected to economic slavery, and the possible “radical” purchases made that could potentially threaten the status quo will enforce incarceration. I think we all can agree, THAT’s crossing the line. Terrorism is based on fundamentalism; radicalism is just a way of thinking. Nothing’s going to change either, and if our thoughts are suppressed, where are we supposed to go? With our economy already in shambles, the welfare state consolidating economic freedom, a scope on our transactions is the furthest thing from effective.

            A sheer violation of our privacy, where are the government’s ethics? Big government politicians advocating the elimination of terrorism are sacrificing our Constitutionally-endowed liberties. Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” With social media growing alongside the paranoia of terrorism, one can only assume that legislations such as these may find solace in policy. Engaging in an Orwellian-state of government watchdogs and the silence of thought, all for temporary safety, is the exact opposite of what America’s inception was meant for. If the founding fathers could see the Internet and it’s possibilities, it would definitely be supported by the Constitution.