Which is more important: freedom or security? Do you believe there is a way to have both freedom and security when it comes to speech? Cite evidence from this text, your own experience, and other literature, art, or history in your answer.

National security is an essential factor of any functioning society, but freedom is just as important.After 9/11, security in America was taken to a new level with increased airport safety procedures, a stronger border control, and new security acts being passed.The government did need to take action, such as enforcing stricter airport regulations to better monitor who enters the country. However, they did not need to infringe on American freedoms that were fought so hard for during the Revolutionary War.The USA Patriot Act of 2001 increased the ability of law enforcement officials to search personal information such as telephone calls, e-mails and personal records. It also eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States.While some aspects of the act are necessary, others are not.The Fourth Amendment ensures "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." Listening in on phone calls and going through people's personal e-mails is unreasonable because it will not make America a safer place to live and it infringes on the freedoms the Fourth Amendment guarantees.U.S. intelligence analysts were ordered to continue monitoring phone calls, even when it was clear they posed no threat to America's safety."We identified phone numbers belonging to non-threatening groups, including the Red Cross," said Adrienne Kinne, a former Arab linguist who worked at a National Security Agency facility at Fort Gordon from 2001 to 2003. "We could have blocked their numbers, but we didn't, and we were told to listen to them just in case."American freedoms were being sacrificed to provide security, even when there was no real danger. The people whose phone calls were being monitored posed no threat to America. This was an invasion of their rights as American citizens.Freedom and security need to be balanced, but freedom should not be jeopardized in order to obtain security.In the beginning, America invested in freedom, not the security of what its citizens already knew. And while both are vital to the success of a nation, freedom is the more fundamental, more enduring, and, therefore, more important.Some may argue that, given the current threats to America, the security of the country and its people should take priority over freedoms, no matter the cost.While there are threats to be concerned about, taking away the liberty of the citizens for the sake of security is just giving in to what the terrorists ultimately want: the suppression of America and its people.These acts were supposed to secure the country and offer more protection in the tumultuous atmosphere of World War I. In reality, they not only failed but they tightened the grip that fear held on the nation. Beyond this, the acts dramatically infringed on First Amendment rights, the freedoms that are deeply ingrained in America.And while the freedom versus security debate is centuries old and circumstances have changed countless times, the dilemma is still the same. In a nation where freedom has had such a high value even before the country's birth, it is nearly impossible to place security before liberty.I consider security to be more important than freedom. For a small group of students in my school, the thoughts concerning this topic are so drastically different that it is our policy to refuse to discuss it with others when we know it will start an argument.Freedom and security do not necessarily refer to matters of national importance. They can be used in many situations. For example, when looking for a job, some people consider how secure they will be having a routine 9 to 5 job with little change in schedule. This ensures that their daily needs will be taken care of and they don't need to worry about those.Another extremely important thing having to do with security is a person's romantic relationships. Is it better to date exclusively and to have a steady boyfriend or girlfriend, or to be free to come and go as you please without having a steady relationship in your life? Personally, I'd like to think that because something like marriage exists, security is considered significantly more important to most individuals.

Some people may think that life is pointless if you aren't free to enjoy it. But I disagree. What's the point of being free if you have to live with the constant uncertainty and worry that's caused by a lack of security?

in   ¨and yet the books¨   by czelaw miloz the tone is positive since it tells us that when we touch a book, it starts to live and the perspective is in the third person and turns once into the first person. in "the rhinoceros" by eugene ionesco the tone is illogical and absurd   and the perspective is in the third person since it is a play.