Freedom and Security have always stood in a certain tension with one another. We must recognize that there are two cases where high level security would be more understandable rather than low level security, vice-versa. The increase in security was a natural response to the 9/11 attacks but keeping it serves as a reminder that humans can do anything horrifyingly imaginable and that there must be someone or something there to stop it. There should be a moderate amount of security and with that there will be a moderate amount of freedom. This is as long we don’t accept that there is a perfect amount of security. We can imagine absolute freedom and a dictatorship as the two ends of a spectrum, and there is this security and freedom slider bar. Where you select how much freedom you desire and what level of danger you're willing to tolerate. A moderate amount of security means that there is a visible respect for civil liberties of an individual such as freedom of speech and the ability to disclose their private lives to anyone they wish too. A visible amount of security to ensure that there will not be any type of anarchy to make people aware of what they are doing is wrong. With this moderate amount of security there’s a trade-off, this moderate security won’t be able to stop and solve every crime meaning that we must accept the fact that there is a chance of an individual dying to violent crime or multiple people dying from a terrorist event but the chance of that happening is exceptionally low. We must find this balance of Freedom and security for the rights and laws of man. The ideal balance between these two forefronts will be right in the middle of the slider mentioned above where we will have a moderate amount of policing and with that there will be freedom where people can be independent and not be at the cost of inconvenience to any.
Moderate amount of security allows people to live private lives and not worry about the government creeping into their everyday life. If we are talking about security in protests society does not have that ideal balance in security and freedom. “It is now taken for granted that if world leaders want to get together to discuss a new trade deal, they will need to build a modern-day fortress to protect themselves from public rage, complete with armored tanks, tear gas, water cannons and attack dogs.” (Pg. 4 Klein). Klein gives us an example of an impenetrable fence of fear that prohibit people from challenging an idea and expressing their opinion on a troubling matter. The fence reflects that high-level security threatens democracy and free speech because it monitors what every citizen reads/write and make them careful not to ruffle any feathers so that there will be no public unrest. A threat to free speech and democracy is a threat to privacy and because of fences like the one mentioned above we lose the ability to be ourselves and having this balance of moderate amount of security and freedom ensures the safety of democracy and the right to free speech because there will be no one overshadowing society that is telling them what not to do because there is nothing compromising your privacy. Moderate amount security will also make sure that people will not impose behaviors by force on others. Similarly, Gopnik mentions that 9/11 museums are not pure because they are censoring multiple things to be sure not to be offensive and almost forcing people to look at the artifacts. “…American readiness to be mortally offended by some small misstep of word or tone. They can be felt navigating the requirements of interested parties at every turn… so that visitors are both invited to look and discouraged from looking.” (Gopnik Pg 5.) This censorship and forcing people to look at artifacts reflects the idea of being controlled and monitored and how that makes people lose the ability make up their own opinion. Because of that people would rather not protest and stay at home and keep quiet so they won’t end up in even worse shape than what they have started with. ”The concept of freedom is about the individual, about each person being capable to make their own decisions, what religion to follow, what views they hold, whether to disclose their information to whoever they wish to. It refers to the individual right to live the way you want and do whatever you want if it does not encroach on the rights of others.” A moderate amount of security will make sure that citizens have the right to live their private lives and freedom of speech because gives them the platform to have meaningful conversations in free spaces within their mind, friend, family, and etc. There will be no one influencing what to believe in.
Moderate amount of security and freedom will reduce the inconveniency of waiting in line and of being told what not to do. “The idea that we celebrate the renewal of our freedom by deploying uniformed guards to prevent children from playing in an outdoor park is not just bizarre in itself but participated in a culture of fear that the rest of the city, having tested, long ago discarded.” (Pg. 1 Gopnik). The absurdity of this situation is inconvenient to the kid because the kid was interrupted from having fun. This inconveniency can also be carried to TSA lines people now have to wait for hours to get into a plane. High policing is inconvenient to people because they are being held from spending that hour to do something else. Because of the inconveniency of the TSA lines will result in people staying home or finding other safe ways of traveling to their desired destination. Society wants to feel reassurance of not having an attack like 9/11 happen again and having this high-level security in airports is the only response to make people feel reassured. America is reaching for something unattainable and that is to protect everyone from everything. In reaching for this goal we neglect the fact that we are significantly reducing inner freedoms. A moderate amount of security will ensure that people can get to their desired destinations with ease. There is also more freedom do other things that are more important than waiting in these lines. Similarly, Klein mentions a case of asylum seekers. “These days, newspapers are filled with gruesome accounts of asylum seekers attempting to make it across national borders by hiding themselves among the products that enjoy so much more mobility than they do. In December 2001, the bodies of eight Romanian refugees, including two children, were discovered in a cargo container filled with office furniture; they had asphyxiated during the long journey at sea” (Klein Pg. 3). The fence that prohibits people from enjoying their basic rights reflects how inconvenient high security because they are denied from basic civil liberties that allows them to be human.
In conclusion, there are cases where maximum and minimum security are understandable in certain cases. The two cases mention above are airport security and protest. Taking out security in airports lead people to distrust them and find new alternatives to getting to their destination and that is for the fact that people would no longer be extensively checked for firearms. Having maximum security in protest would limit protestors and undermine the meaning of a protest which is to voice opinions and make a change. We must understand that with every level security we sacrifice freedom. The ideal balance would be to have a moderate amount of security where there would be a visible respect for civil liberties and a visible secureness for the instance if someone were to do commit a crime there would be a guard that would be there to stop them.