Monday, September 2, 2019
Incorrect Interpretation of the USA Patriot Act :: Politics
Incorrect Interpretation of the USA Patriot Act The USA Patriot Act is a legitimate law. It was rightly passed in light of the terrorist attacks on American ground. Americans have a right to be concerned about terrorism. However, the fear of the terrorists should not make Americans give up their way of life. Americans should not be forced to sacrifice what our country is proud of, including democracy and freedom of expression. In the case of the University of California San Diego (UCSD) administration banning the link to the terrorist website, the USA Patriot Act was interpreted incorrectly. Their decision to ban the hyperlink was a violation of freedom of speech. A link to a website should not be seen as communications equipment. Americans, obviously, have a right to be concerned about terrorists. In concern for the AmericansÃ¢â¬â¢ own safety, the USA Patriot Act was passed with good reason. It should stay in effect and should not be modified. The terrorist attacks opened all AmericansÃ¢â¬â¢ eyes and it was good to see that a law was actually passed to do something about it. The USA Patriot Act was passed in order to prevent Americans from supporting terrorists. It made it illegal to provide money, lodging, training or communications equipment to terrorists. An example of someone breaking this act would be John Walker Lynn. John Walker Lynn outraged many Americans and was one of the reasons why the USA Patriot Act was passed. This law would condemn future cases of John Walker Lynn. He is an American who joined the Taliban in the fight against the United States in Afghanistan. His case is currently in progress because there was no Patriot Act earlier when he did fight for the Taliban. He quickly became the American peopleÃ¢â¬â¢s favorite enemy. Many people argue that since UCSD owns the server which the students use for internet access, they have the right to restrict what the students do on their server. Some even make an argument that this is merely a property issue instead of a freedom of speech issue.