J.D. Tuccille
..."Mass shootings create a pervasive sense of
insecurity and anxiety that politicians and policymakers will inevitably
seek to address," senior policy analyst Jay Stanley insists
on the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project blog. As a
result, he argues, "those who support expansive gun rights as a
protection against excessive government power should strongly consider
how much government intrusion and expanded power they're willing to
trade for those rights."
This is the old "why do you make him hit you?" argument applied to
civil liberties. It excuses the actions of the abuser—the state in this
case—as reactions to the missteps of the abused. But it's actually a
step further removed, because most gun owners fly entirely below the
state's radar. They're among the general population getting slapped by
policies that politicians justify as responses to the crimes of a tiny
minority.
This is also a blame-the-innocent argument that can be applied to so many civil liberties.
The FBI wants back doors into cell phones
because terrorists and criminals occasionally use encryption? You
wouldn't have to worry about overreaching law enforcement if you'd just
drop your stubborn advocacy for privacy.
Authoritarian politicians want to clamp down on the Internet
because a few basement dwellers get radicalized in online chat rooms?
We could calm the calls for censorship if you'd abandon your defense of
free-wheeling speech rights.
Anybody with a limited taste for defending freedom—or an actual
hostility to the same—can construct a similar "stop making them hit you"
argument against the exercise of any sort of liberty that makes
government officials nervous. Which means that there's no end to it,
because the whole idea of people going through their lives unguided and
unmonitored ultimately keeps government officials awake at night. That's
why they'll grab for any excuse at hand to expand their power and
control.
No comments:
Post a Comment