Opposition:
The other freedom most called into question by those who oppose the Patriot Act is the First Amendment right to free speech. These naysayers argue that even though free speech is not taken away by the Patriot Act directly, the ease by which the government can now obtain the right to search and surveil is disconcerting to the point of terrifying those with different opinions into silence. The article “USA Patriot Act” exemplifies this by noting that some Muslims have said that they are are hesitant to speak their beliefs, visit certain internet sites, or attend mosques because they are afraid of being targeted and pegged by the government as terrorists (par. 33). These critics hold that certain people groups will, undoubtedly, be targeted, especially with the amount of data that can be obtained today. “USA Patriot Act” and research from authors Deborah Lee and Heather Newton reveal that the technology utilized by federal agencies under the authority of the Patriot Act enables access to many types of data, like medical records, phone metadata, and even library book checkouts (“USA Patriot Act” par. 11; Lee and Newton par. 3 ). Opposition suggests that this amount of power in such an accessible form causes fear among the people, discouraging them from having their own opinions and speaking them; believing the government is watching every move, people begin to think twice about the books they check out, the places they visit, and the TV shows they watch. Unfortunately, yet again, this issue has been blown majorly out of proportion, breeding fear where it should not exist.
Support:
The opposition is mistaken because it overlooks that this First Amendment argument is based only on speculation, not fact; the First Amendment right to free speech is still fully intact, and, by living lawfully, citizens of the United States should never be worried about this power. In none of the scenarios listed above would an innocent citizen be punished for his or her actions. John Pearson, a seasoned writer for the Points of View Reference Center, explains, “[Anti-terrorist measures] are meant to impact the civil liberties that previously made it much too easy for terrorists to hijack planes, blow up buildings, and kill Americans. Should it impact ordinary citizens? Other than in taking more time at airports, and in other small measures, there should be little if any impact on ordinary people” (par. 23). Pearson’s astute point is that normal, upstanding citizens with nothing to hide should have no fear in the face of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was designed to stop terrorists, not terrorize innocent people.