(U-WIRE) UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — Almost one year after the USA Patriot Act was signed into law, some Americans seem to be more willing to sacrifice civil liberties in the name of security.
A recent survey regarding Sept. 11 and free speech indicates 49 percent of Americans believe the First Amendment goes too far in the amount of free speech it allows. The First Amendment Center, a national organization dedicated to protecting First Amendment freedoms by informing and educating the public, conducted the survey.
Enacted Oct. 26, the Patriot Act is a set of measures, totaling 342 pages, designed to give federal law enforcers enhanced tools to fight terrorism.
The act’s approval bypassed ordinary congressional procedures, setting aside the standard number of debates and hearings dedicated to most pieces of legislation.
It allows federal law enforcers to monitor library records, track communication over phones, monitor e-mail traffic and check which websites individuals visit.
These provisions can impinge on people’s civil liberties, said Robert D. Richards, professor of journalism and law.
Richards, the founding co-director of the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment, said the act compromises First Amendment rights to free speech.
If people know there is a possibility that federal agents could be eavesdropping on their conversations, they may exercise self-censorship in the fear of being prosecuted for their speech, said Paul McMasters, First Amendment ombudsman for the First Amendment Center.
The result of this year’s survey shows a dramatic leap from the one taken two years ago, in which 22 percent of Americans thought the First Amendment went too far, said Gene Policinski, deputy director of the First Amendment Center.
While Americans might be willing to give up certain rights, Richards cautioned against being too hasty to accept compromised civil liberties.
“Once rights are chipped away, eroded, put aside, it’s very hard to get them back,” he said.
Americans have historically called for the restriction of rights in times of war, Policinski said.
“We see fear driving a lot of these concerns,” Policinski said. “In times of fear, Americans seem willing to restrict certain types of civil liberties.”
However, unlike previous wars in American history, the war on terror has no definable end because there will most likely always be terrorists and war efforts against them, Richards said.
“Does that mean we’ll have to give up our civil liberties for good?” he asked.
Although some people argue that the act could take away civil liberties, Jon Hartland, social chair of the Penn State chapter of Young Americans for Freedom, said he supports the act because the threat of terrorist attacks is great enough to require it.
Claudia Lum, YAF vice president, offered a similar opinion as Hartland.
“It’s sort of a necessary evil,” Lum said. “We have to ensure we can keep enjoying the rest of our freedoms.”
However, Richards said it might be time for Congress to review the act.
It is necessary that lawmakers do a better job of balancing security interests against liberty interests, McMasters said.
If First Amendment liberties are compromised too much, security will not matter without those rights, he said.
McMasters said he was alarmed at the seeming lack of interest among most young Americans in regard to their civil liberties. America’s youngest generations have the most at stake when laws compromise free speech, he said.
Dan Leathers, co-coordinator of the Penn State chapter for the American Civil Liberties Union, said he is opposed to the act.
“If we lived under a Nazi regime, it would be easier to hunt down a terrorist, but that’s not the kind of government we want to live under,” Leathers said.
