NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey guys, I'm curious what all your positions are on whether a government should limit individual rights and freedoms during a national crisis?

Feel free to leave comments.

What counts as a national crisis. The dollar lost too much value? There really are aliens invading the country? They are different things.

In a real security crisis, one in which the continued existence of the nation is at stake, there may be justification of restricting liberties of speech, assembly etc. If it is just a political crisis, with no real content, then no.

The government should never limit rights and freedoms. Ever.

The government should never limit rights and freedoms. Ever.
I wholeheartedly agree.

What counts as a national crisis. The dollar lost too much value? There really are aliens invading the country? They are different things.

In a real security crisis, one in which the continued existence of the nation is at stake, there may be justification of restricting liberties of speech, assembly etc. If it is just a political crisis, with no real content, then no.



I'm interested... Why is it justified to restrict liberties of speech during
a real security crisis?

Only when absolutely, absolutely necessary. Then to the absolute minimum. Not when it could help, not when it makes security easier, not when it's convenient. Only when the nations survival is truly at stake.

The government should never limit rights and freedoms. Ever.
I agree.

Only when absolutely, absolutely necessary. Then to the absolute minimum. Not when it could help, not when it makes security easier, not when it's convenient. Only when the nations survival is truly at stake.

Yeah, that might be the only time I'd allow such a thing to happen. And, only if it could actually save the country... Not if there was just a slim chance (say, 7%).

I wholeheartedly agree.
me to, a national crisis is no reason to restrict rights actually i think that is when they are most important

Unless they're dropping bombs, anarchy on the streets, Godzilla, Giant Octopus, millitary or political coup d' at, or the apocolypse...then stay the hell away.

I'm interested... Why is it justified to restrict liberties of speech during
a real security crisis?

It is not a matter of preventing people talking about who they think will win the ball game, or what the next hot fashion item is. However to talk openly about industrial production capacity, steel reserves, the power shortages etc. during a war, is to potentially provide critical strategical information to the enemy that your country is fighting. You never know who is listening.
This presumes a real war, WWII in the UK style, not Gulf war or Falklands or any foreign, far away action.

The government should never limit rights and freedoms. Ever.
the goverment always limit rights and freedoms.
when murderer go the jail, his freedom is limited.
when countrey take taxes from her citizens their right to free enterprise is limited.
when the press published anything about famous person, it limit his right to privacy.
when the leadership pass a law, someone rights will always be harmed and limited.
you just can't do it in other way.

anyway, I think the goverment should limit freedoms and rights in crisis situation, for guarding the democracy. if someone trying to kill the prime-minister, to convince soldiers to ignore their commanders orders, to harm other lifes, or to act violencly against their opposition, I think the right thing will be to throw them to the jail (depend on their harm).

when we give up freedom for security we will neither be free or secure... the same can be said if we give up security for freedom.

the goverment always limit rights and freedoms.

Yes, I know. Sad, isn't it?

when murderer go the jail, his freedom is limited.

Well yes, because they're in prison. You can't do much when you're in a cell block now, can you?

when countrey take taxes from her citizens their right to free enterprise is limited.

This doesn't have anything to do with civil rights.

when the press published anything about famous person, it limit his right to privacy.

This doesn't have anything to do with government, unless of course the press is controlled by the government, but then you'd have many bigger problems than basic civil rights.

when the leadership pass a law, someone rights will always be harmed and limited.
you just can't do it in other way.

Explain, please.

anyway, I think the goverment should limit freedoms and rights in crisis situation, for guarding the democracy. if someone trying to kill the prime-minister, to convince soldiers to ignore their commanders orders, to harm other lifes, or to act violencly against their opposition, I think the right thing will be to throw them to the jail (depend on their harm).

Wait a minute... Of course somebody should be imprisoned for trying to kill a politician, or anybody, for that matter. Offing somebody isn't a part of civil rights. And yes, people who try to harm the nation by leaking information and trying to spread propaganda should be thrown in jail.

If you limit the rights and freedom of the people to protect the country you destroy the very thing you are trying to protect. Then we don't even have the freedom thats worth fighting for, we are only fighting for the self continuation the the current government.

I'm thinking it would be only when it is necessary, but for some reason I chose the 3rd option instead. :confused:

Yes, I know. Sad, isn't it?more neccesery than sad. since we aren't live in perfect world yet, you just can get the all benefits.

Well yes, because they're in prison. You can't do much when you're in a cell block now, can you?if the goverment can't limit the rights, than they can't put people in prisons.



This doesn't have anything to do with civil rights.free enterprise is basic human right, just as the right to freedom (freedom of speach, demonstration, etc').

This doesn't have anything to do with government, unless of course the press is controlled by the government, but then you'd have many bigger problems than basic civil rights.no. this is just example of right that limit other right.

when the goverment ban something in law, you can't do it without punishment.
when the goverment legalize something it harm the right of the minorities to live as they want (freedom of choice).

[quote]Wait a minute... Of course somebody should be imprisoned for trying to kill a politician, or anybody, for that matter. Offing somebody isn't a part of civil rights. And yes, people who try to harm the nation by leaking information and trying to spread propaganda should be thrown in jail.if you can't limit crimanals they will murder politician.if you can't limit the freedom of speach, their racist talks and instigation will lead to violence. if they give secret information, it could endangre the security of the public.

the goverment should limit her enemies, before they will ruin her. the question is only on the border of the limits. the sure thing is the goverment have to limit some rights in some cases.