Security or Freedom--The Boundary Between National Security and Freedom of Speech
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wolran Kim / Sep 2010



Free expression is a symbol of democracy. A self-confident government can learn much and can find ways to make itself more responsive to people as a result of such discussion. It is interesting these definitions of free expression from [An American View] by Margaret A. Blanchard, Prof. Uni. North Carolina.
“First, freedom of speech is expected to bring a certain amount of inconvenience to government because it brings forward different ideas from different constituencies for consideration. Second, freedom of speech leads to raucous and, at times, unpleasant debate. Third, freedom of expression challenges the existing order of things. Fourth, freedom of speech means freedom for the ideas that we hate. Fifth, freedom of speech means that there is no prescribed orthodoxy of views.”(Blanchard)

Free expression has to be allowed which could reveal the truth. But, what if those freedoms could threaten our further freedom: national security problems or security of life and property? Those freedoms will be the killer of even our daily freedom which we are blessed with. There should be limits. Free expression can be recognizing only under peace of the world and an iron railing of safety. Free expression in the ravages of war and terror cannot be true freedom. This is connected to the effect that freedom always goes with responsibility.

Of course, all sorts of social enactments will take shape everywhere in people's everyday lives if fixed under the boundary of national security issues. The United States suddenly changed right after September 11, 2001. As a member of the general public, I can realize the fear of national security every time when I get into an airplane. A hug and kiss goodbye at the airport watching an airplane through the window has become the story in a fairy tale now. I felt like I was a terrorist whenever I passed an inspection spot at an airport or some other public building. But taking off my shoes and belt is much better than fear from terrorists in the airplane or building.

This is just a simple example of limits which changed from national security issues. Media was overwhelmed with all sorts of plots and speculative news stories right after 9.11. The United States is one of the first-class power countries in the world which secured freedom of speech so much so that people who have a controversial view of 9.11 appeared on broadcast programs.

After a diplomatic happening, the XYZ Affair was exposed in 1798 and led to the eve of the war between America and France continued an armed clash at sea without a declaration of war. But they evaded official war and settled by agreement in 1800. People became too jingoistic. Regulation of aliens became stronger. That was an aftereffect of the XYZ Affair and some Americans cried for war.
The first step was the Treaty of London. France was angry about an agreement between America and England, which compensated part of loss from the War of Independence. France who was ruined financially from supporting the Revolutionary War, didn't leave America alone, considering it a betrayer. The way of punishment was capturing ships. America sent a delegation after France captured 300 ships, but it didn't succeed, because France requested not only official pardon and a formal loan but also asked for personal bribes.

The person who exposed this was the President John Adams. There was no other choice because the President disclosed the sensitive case. President Adams was a laughingstock from being elected by only three-vote difference and he gained in strength from this war. He failed in reelection even though he made the Immigration Restriction Law, an Alien Act, Sedition Act, and the National Security Law, because of red-ink finance and an economic deadlock. These acts were repealed because they were seen as unconstitutional and from presidential powers. (Statutes at Large of the United States of America)

The interesting thing is that history is repeating. Walking of America after 9.11 and after the XYZ Affair was of the same sort. The Patriot Act from former President Bush which passed the end of unconstitutional criticism was same chain of reasoning as President Adam's Laws.(Ryue) Those Laws are the proves how seriously threatened national security system. The Bill of Rights from Virginia in 1776 which called the beginning of modern Declaration of Human Rights said: the freedom of the press is one of breakwaters which keep the total freedom and nobody can restrain except a despotic government. Freedom of speech was the biggest object and a weapon for fighting in history of human rights. The government of a democratic country should always stand critically on a narrow boundary line between national security and freedom of speech.