Country forces

What historical forces or events, if any, contributed to a widespread belief in its importance?

Right	Breakout	Contents
Freedom of Association		Assertions of freedom of association as a right first emerged during the Enlightenment period of the 17th and 18th centuries from philosophers such as Locke and Montesquieu. Locke forms his argument on a larger scale in terms of political society as a whole: “Nothing can make any man so but his actually entering into [society] by positive engagement and express promise and compact. This is that which, I think, concerning the beginning of political societies, and that consent which makes any one a member of any commonwealth” (Locke 1690, 158). Montesquieu however specifies his argument in terms of economic associations: “… all associations of merchants, in order to carry on a particular commerce, are seldom proper in absolute governments” (Montesquieu 1748, 352). Conversely, if associations are not “proper” in absolute governments, one can conclude that Montesquieu advocated for freedom of association as a necessary component of a democratic society to protect individual interests. While Enlightenment philosophers were among the first to raise the issue of association rights, it took several hundred years for it to be officially and legally codified. Major historical movements that have promoted freedom of association are of twofold importance: firstly, association rights are often exercised to highlight societal or political injustices, but the right itself also lends legitimacy to the people who want to see progress in their societies and governments. In terms of formal acceptances of freedom of association, the first country-specific code emerged in France in 1789 and the United States in 1791. In the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, Article 11 establishes that “the free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law” (“Declaration of the Rights of Man”). Shortly after the publication of this document, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was ratified, ensuring that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (U.S. Constitution. Amendment I). While freedom of association is not explicitly identified here, the freedoms that are listed are specific elements of what constitutes freedom of association as a whole. CODIFIED LAWS THAT PROTECT FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION The promotion of freedom of association did not emerge on an international scale until after World War II. First in 1948 with the adoption of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 20 provides that “everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. No one may be compelled to belong to an association." This was the first international agreement to refer to human rights and liberties that everyone should enjoy, regardless of nationality or citizenship. And while this is not a universally legally binding document, it serves as a baseline for legal frameworks around the world and establishes freedom of association as a fundamental right of democratic societies. Building upon the UDHR later in 1966, the UN established the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to ensure the protection of fundamental civil and political rights in each of its participant countries. Article 22 states that: 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others… While the UDHR is an internationally focused agreement, it is not legally binding for the partner countries and therefore has no real jurisdiction or right to action. Conversely, the ICCPR as a legal document guarantees the rights it establishes in each country that ratifies the Covenant. AMERICAN LABOR AND TRADE UNION MOVEMENT The American labor and trade union movement of the early 20th century was a major historical force that contributed to a more widespread belief in freedom of association. In light of the industrialization of the 18th and 19th centuries, the movement fought for the rights of workers to form trade unions and bargain collectively. As we saw in the UDHR, one can think of union membership as an exercise of freedom of association. An example from the decade before the promulgation of the UDHR that might make this clear is the passage of the National Labor Relations Act into law in 1935. Its main objective was to guarantee freedom of association for employees via the formation of union organizations. Section 7. C provides that “employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection…” (United States Code: National Labor Relations). Because of the work of trade organizations like the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, freedom of association was now a legally protected right for American employees in their places of work. WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE The women’s suffrage movement of the 19th and 20th centuries was greatly dependent on freedom of association as a means of action, and it also helped to promote a more widespread belief in this freedom as a fundamental right. Organizations like the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) in the US and the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU) in the UK were instrumental in organizing efforts of like-minded people who wanted to see gender equality for political rights. One of the most notable events of the movement was the Seneca Falls Convention that convened in 1848. At this convention, Elizabeth Cady Stanton produced the Declaration of Sentiments, which explained both what activists wanted to see produced from their actions (i.e., gender equality socially, politically, religiously, and economically), but also how they planned to use freedom of association to publicize their message and complaints. The Declaration proclaims that “we shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the State and National legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press on our behalf. We hope this Convention will be followed by a series of Conventions embracing every part of the country” (Stanton, 1848). By utilizing freedom of association to organize the efforts of their activists, they could achieve greater clarity of message and work more efficiently to bring their goals to fruition. AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT Similar to the women’s suffrage movement, the Civil Rights Movement in America was highly dependent on the right to join organizations of one’s choosing and therefore was crucial to affirming the importance of freedom of association. But unlike the suffrage movement, there was an added barrier to the free utilization of this right— institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination. Organizations like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) emerged as a way for like-minded individuals to coordinate efforts and provide support for other activists, but they were often met with resistance on grounds of racial discrimination. In the landmark case NAACP v. Alabama, John Patterson sued the state in an attempt to ban the organization from operating in Alabama based on the argument that “the NAACP was a foreign corporation not qualified to do business in Alabama” (Rubinowitz 2017, 1237). Patterson then “obtained an order compelling the NAACP to provide its membership list as part of the state’s assessment of the organization.” But “the organization refused to comply because of the harm that would cause both the individual members and the NAACP itself" (Rubinowitz 2017, 1237). The case reached the Supreme Court in 1958, and a unanimous Court decided in favor of the petitioners, explaining that “in the circumstances of this case, compelled disclosure of petitioner's membership lists is likely to constitute an effective restraint on its members' freedom of association…” (NAACP v. Alabama 357, 1958). ANTI-APARTHEID MOVEMENT The anti-apartheid movement in South Africa spanned several decades of the 20th century and was aimed at dismantling the systemic racism that the government of South Africa was built on. It utilized and promoted freedom of association as a means to organize resistance efforts and promote fundamental equality which contributed to a widespread belief in this right. The African National Congress (ANC) was the primary group leading the liberation movement for many years before being forced to go underground in the 1960s. Despite this, and after decades of repression, censorship, and violence at the hands of the apartheid government, the resistance efforts reached new heights in the 1980s. As more community organizations began to appear, it became clear that there was a need for greater structure to achieve their goals of liberation. This led to the creation of organizations like the United Democratic Front (UDF) and Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU). The importance of these organizations cannot be overstated-- it was the persistent efforts of anti-apartheid associations that won out in the end and put the ANC in power from 1994 onwards (ANC History: The Struggle for People’s Power, 2023). SOLIDARITY The Solidarity movement was a trade union movement in Poland in the late 20th century that leveraged freedom of association to protest the communist regime. Communist rule in Poland had long been unpopular, and Solidarity was not the first movement to arise in opposition to them, but it was the first to successfully utilize the right of association to produce change which proved its importance as a fundamental right (Bartkowski 2009, 2). Following years of economic decline, Poland saw massive labor strikes in the summer of 1980. The trade union Solidarity was born out of the Gdansk Shipyard under the leadership of Lech Walesa and was legalized by the Polish government shortly thereafter as they determined that “it is considered expedient to establish new self-governing trade unions that will genuinely represent the working class” (Gdansk Agreement 1980, 11). They became the first legal trade union in the Eastern Bloc, and they eventually grew into a popular political movement. But as its popularity and size continued to develop, the communist regime imposed martial law and forced Solidarity underground. However, Solidarity survived this repression and later played a key role in the appointment of the country’s first non-communist prime minister nearly a decade later (Bartkowski, 2009). References: “ANC History.” African National Congress. Accessed June 16, 2023. https://www.anc1912.org.za/history/. Baron de Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat. The Spirit of the Laws. Translated by Thomas Nugent. Batoche Books, 2001. Bartkowski, Maciej. “Poland’s Solidarity Movement (1980-1989).” International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, December 2009. https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/polands-solidarity-movement-1980-1989/. “Declaration of the Rights of Man.” Avalon Project. Accessed June 16, 2023. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp. Khronika Press. “The Gdansk Agreement: Protocol of Agreement between the Government Commission and the Interfactory Strike Committee Concluded on August 31, 1980 at Gdansk Shipyards.” World Affairs 145, no. 1 (1982): 11–19. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20671927. Locke, John. “Of the Beginning of Political Societies.” Essay. In Two Treatises of Government 10, 10:146–58. London: Thomas Tegg et. al, 1823. NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson (U.S. Supreme Court June 30, 1958). Rubinowitz, Leonard S. 2017. “The Courage of Civil Rights Lawyers: Fred Gray and His Colleagues.” Case Western Reserve Law Review 67 (4): 1227–75. https://search-ebscohost-com.uc.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=123785450&site=ehost-live&scope=site. Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. “The Declaration of Sentiments.” The Seneca Falls Declaration 1848 . Accessed June 16, 2023. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1826-1850/the-seneca-falls-declaration-1848.php. United Nations General Assembly. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). New York: United Nations General Assembly, 16 December 1966. United Nations General Assembly. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). New York: United Nations General Assembly, 1948. U.S. Constitution. Amendment I United States Code: National Labor Relations, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-166 Suppl. 2 . 1935.
Freedom of Expression		Debates and movements for the protection of freedom of expression are a recent development that “scarcely arose before the revolutions of the eighteenth century" (Zoller 2009, 803). But one can see that it is frequently in response to oppressive governmental measures that opposition arises to promote freedom of expression for democratic society and its citizens from external censorship. The intended outcome of these revolutions was to ensure the citizen’s right “to freely speak one's mind, represent one's viewpoint, defend one's opinions, communicate one's ideas… without fear for life, liberty, or possessions, but with peace of mind and a firm certainty of freedom from government harassment…” (Zoller 2009, 803). There are five notable historical movements and events that helped contribute to the widespread belief of freedom of expression as a fundamental right: the Enlightenment, The American and French Revolutions, the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the Arab Spring. THE ENLIGHTENMENT The promotion of freedom of expression as a universal right was first established by the philosophes of the Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries. Frederick of Prussia, Immanuel Kant, and Johann Gottlieb Fichte all wrote on the idea of freedom of expression, especially in how it relates to free thought and opinion. James Schmidt quoted Immanuel Kant in support of the claim that freedom of thought, however praiseworthy in its own right, is much more valuable when informed by the thoughts of others: “‘… but how much and how accurately would we think if we did not think, so to speak, in community with others to whom we communicate our thoughts and who communicate their thoughts to us!’” (Schmidt [quoting Kant] 1996, 30). Agreeing with this sentiment, Frederick of Prussia also expressed his wish “to rule over a noble, brave, freethinking people, a people that has the power and liberty to think and to act, to write and to speak, to win or to die” (Schmidt [quoting Frederick of Prussia] 1996, 89). At this point in history, freedom of expression, especially in a monarchical context, became a key component of Enlightenment thought, as it was determined that the right to possess and share one’s opinions was the mark of a civilized society. THE AMERICAN AND FRENCH REVOLUTIONS Building upon Enlightenment philosophies, freedom of expression (or the lack thereof) played central roles in the American and French Revolutions of the late 18th centuries. However, how freedom of expression was expressed in each case manifested very differently. In America, "as taxes were imposed without their consent, colonists believed their freedom of expression and representation was violated. Protests, petitions, and gatherings were quickly put down by government officials. Freedom of expression, speech, and the press were punishable and denied to many" (Charkins et. Al 2019, 35). The repression of what the colonists believed to be a fundamental right only exacerbated the situation and eventually led them to demand “the formation of a government that would promise protection of those inherent liberties" via the American Revolution (Pomerance 2016, 112). After the war, this eventually prompted the ratification of the First Amendment to the Constitution that confirmed that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (U.S. Constitution, 1791). Conversely, while American efforts came from an institutionalized lack of freedom, the French struggle came from a surprising decision from King Louis XVI. In 1789, when he called a meeting of the Estates General, he began by “suspending censorship of publications, even allowing writings that criticized the monarchy…" (Pomerance 2016, 114). This afforded French people freedom of expression to a degree they had never seen before, and soon newspapers and pamphlets across France were calling for a democratic overhaul of the whole country. This top-down decision from the King paved a slightly untraditional path to revolution, especially in contrast to the Americans who were denied freedom of expression from their government. Louis had opened the floodgates, and just months after the first meeting, “there was little doubt that free speech and expression were high on the list of demands from the Frenchmen calling for change” (Pomerance 2016, 117). These sentiments were eventually listed in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, in Articles 10 and 11 which state that “no one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order,” and “the free communication of ideas and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man. Any citizen may therefore speak, write and publish freely, except what is tantamount to the abuse of this liberty in the cases determined by Law" (“Declaration of the Rights of Man”). THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS International protections of fundamental rights did not emerge until the late 20th century in response to the “barbarous acts” of World War II (Amnesty International). And in response to these acts, it became a goal of the newly founded United Nations to set a global standard for freedom and justice for everyone, regardless of nationality or citizenship. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted in 1948 and establishes a comprehensive list of rights and liberties that everyone is entitled to. Freedom of expression is guaranteed by Article 19 which states that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (United Nations 1948). While the UDHR is not a legally binding document, it was the first international agreement focused on the protection of basic human rights and freedoms. THE FALL OF THE BERLIN WALL The fall of the Berlin Wall was a major turning point in the history of freedom of expression and its applications. During the Cold War, Europe was split between a democratic West and a communist East, with a physical manifestation of this divide erected in Berlin by the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Many basic freedoms and liberties were suppressed in the Eastern Bloc, and “human rights violations in East Germany centered mainly on freedom of movement, expression and association” (Human Rights Watch 1989). Before the fall, “the potential to express dissidence… [marked] the border between East and West," but after, East Berliners used their restored freedoms to express their opinions without fear of retribution (Zoller 2009, 806). The fall of the Berlin Wall was a major win for universal human rights, and it marked the beginning of the end of the Cold War that inspired similar democratic movements across the Eastern Bloc that eventually led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. THE ARAB SPRING Applications of human rights and freedoms will have to continue to adapt to societal changes. As recently seen with the Arab Spring uprisings, widespread access to the internet and social media channels that now allow near total freedom of expression on a global scale has reshaped how one can utilize this freedom for the promotion of democracy, but it has also raised questions as to how parameters of this right should be drawn in instances of dangerous or harmful views. Before the rise of the internet, “discussions focused on the idea of what a man was allowed to utter or write when he found himself to be at odds with an established orthodoxy…", but now, it is imperative that “national legislations should envisage legal instruments to carefully limit its application (when abusive), in those situations in which free speech becomes an obstacle for the free exercise of other fundamental rights” as free speech and expression can be shared on an international level (Racolța 2019, 8, 15). Although freedom of expression is now an expected right of democratic societies, it remains at the forefront of international discussions to determine how to both ensure the right itself for people deprived of it and to also protect people from abuses of free expression.  References: Charkins, Jim, Michelle Herczog, and Thomas Herman. “Breaking Down the Silos: The American Revolution--A Story Well Told.” Social Studies Review 58 (January 2019): 25–42. https://search-ebscohost-com.uc.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eft&AN=154271093&site=ehost-live&scope=site. “Declaration of the Rights of Man.” Avalon Project. Accessed June 16, 2023. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp. “EAST GERMANY.” Human Rights Watch World Report, 1989. https://www.hrw.org/reports/1989/WR89/Eastgerm.htm. Pomerance, Benjamin. “First In, First Out: Promises and Problems of Free Expression in Revolutionary and Post-Revolutionary Governments.” Maryland Journal of International Law 31, no. 1 (January 2016): 107–79. https://search-ebscohost-com.uc.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=122460887&site=ehost-live&scope=site. Racolța, Remus, and Andreea Verteș-Olteanu. 2019. “Freedom of Expression. Some Considerations for the Digital Age.” Jus et Civitas VI (LXX) (1): 7–16. https://search-ebscohost-com.uc.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=139539130&site=ehost-live&scope=site. Schmidt, James. What Is Enlightenment?: Eighteenth-Century Answers and Twentieth-Century Questions. Philosophical Traditions. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. https://search-ebscohost-com.uc.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=4657&site=ehost-live&scope=site. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Amnesty International, April 11, 2023. https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/universal-declaration-of-human-rights/#:~:text=The%20UDHR%20was%20adopted%20by,for%20freedom%2C%20justice%20and%20peace. United Nations General Assembly. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). New York: United Nations General Assembly, 1948. Zoller, Elisabeth. "Foreword: Freedom of Expression: Precious Right in Europe, Sacred Right in the United States," Indiana Law Journal 84, no. 3 (Summer 2009): 803-808
Freedom of Religion		Widespread belief in the importance of religious freedom within a liberal democratic society developed over centuries of religious separation, conflict, discourse. Over the past five hundred years Western civilization has transitioned from a uniformly Christian bloc of nations into a set of states defined by religious diversity and built upon the principles of toleration and religious freedom. Three major forces drove that transformation: The violence caused by religious intolerance, the increasing value of free thought, and the success of religiously free states. Over time, all three of these historical forces led to the widespread belief in the importance of religious freedom within western society. The first historical force that led to the original identification of religious freedom as a valuable right was the horror and devastation that Europe witnessed during the Reformation era as a result of religious conflicts. The widespread destruction that took place during such conflicts as the Schmalkaldic Wars, the French Wars of Religion, and the English Civil War showed Europeans how difficult it would be to preserve religious unity within their borders, which led some to question the value of religious homogeneity. The Thirty Years War, especially, led to the identification of religious tolerance as an alternative to the religiously-motivated violence when it concluded with the landmark Peace of Westphalia. Voltaire’s assessment that “Germany would be a desert strewn with the bones of Catholics, Protestants, and Anabaptists, slain by each other, if the Peace of Westphalia had not at length brought freedom of conscience” reveals how important the war, and the treaty that ended it, really were to the identification of religious freedom as an important civil right (Voltaire, “Toleration and Other Essays - Online Library of Liberty”). Historian Gordon Christenson similarly notes that the principle of religious tolerance had been included in previous Reformation-era treaties, but the Peace of Westphalia’s explicit use of the principle as a peacekeeping measure reveals that it had broken into mainstream political thought by the end of the war (Christenson, “Liberty of the Exercise of Religion in the Peace of Westphalia”) As the dust settled after years of religious conflict, a second historical force also contributed to the widespread belief in the right of religious freedom. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Enlightenment thinkers reflected upon the Reformation wars and the state of European politics, and began to advocate for the freedom of thought and faith within political society. In 1669 Spinoza concluded that “a government would be most harsh which deprived the individual of his freedom of saying and teaching what he thought; and would be moderate if such freedom were granted” (Spinoza, “The Chief Works of Benedict De Spinoza,” 195), Two decades later, Locke came to a similar conclusion when his “Letter Concerning Toleration” specifically outlined the principle of religious toleration by asserting that “no private person has any right in any manner to prejudice another person in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church or religion” (Locke, “A Letter Concerning Toleration,”). Though the identification of religious freedom as a fundamental right did not immediately lead to its universal adoption among western states, it did represent a significant advancement in the field of religious rights. Going forward, rulers and state builders were more conscious of religious toleration as a viable alternative to forcing religious uniformity within their borders. About a century later, this Locke sentiment was directly incorporated into the American Bill of Rights, which prohibits the creation of any law that might restrict the free practice of religion. Over time the ideas of toleration and the freedom of thought became more widespread, which led a number of states to explore religious freedom as a principle upon which strong nations could be built. Among the first political leaders to embrace the principle of religious freedom was Roger Williams, who founded the English colony of Rhode Island after he was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony. As the colony grew over the next several years, he drafted a compact under which it could be governed. Smithsonian Magazine writes that “the most significant element was what the compact did not say. It did not propose to build a model of God’s kingdom on earth, as did Massachusetts...the compact did not even ask God’s blessing. It made no mention of God at all” (Smithsonian Institution, “God, Government and Roger Williams' Big Idea,”). Shortly afterward Williams traveled to England in order to secure a charter from an English Parliament that was itself in the midst of a Civil War. The charter was granted, and the committee that granted it “left all decisions about religion to the “greater Part”—the majority—knowing the majority would keep the state out of matters of worship. Soul liberty now had official sanction” (Smithsonian Institution, “God, Government and Roger Williams' Big Idea,”). The establishment of the Rhode island colony greatly benefitted the growing belief in religious freedom as a fundamental right because it proved that a political society defined by toleration could find success despite the lack of uniform religion. This idea heavily influenced the drafting of the United States Constitution, and over the next two centuries freedom of religion came to be a defining feature for liberal democracies. Over the past five centuries, western civilization underwent a number of historical changes that led it to lose faith in the benefits of religious homogeneity and instead come to support freedom of belief and universal toleration. As it slowly began to understand the dangers of promoting state-led religious uniformity, the western world began to explore ideas of plurality and acceptance before eventually embracing them in political entities such as Rhode Island and the United States. Modern democracies still struggle to guarantee the right to freedom of religion at times, but after five hundred years of development western society at least recognizes it as a fundamental human right. References: John M. Barry, “God, Government and Roger Williams’ Big Idea,” Jan. 2012, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/god-government-and-roger-williams-big-idea-6291280 Gordon A. Christenson, “Liberty of the Exercise of Religion in the Peace of Westphalia,” Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, Vol. 21, 2012). Locke, “Letter Concerning Toleration” Spinoza, The Chief Works of Benedict De Spinoza Voltaire, Voltaire. Toleration and Other Essays. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1755. https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/mccabe-toleration-and-other-essays.
Freedom of the Press		Within the thirteen colonies before the American Revolution, the government did not allow free press. Rather, any form of print had to have a government granted license. The government's initial opposition to free press stemmed from the printing of the first American newspaper in Boston in 1690 called, Publick Occurrences, Both Foreign and Domestick. The British government wanted to censor American media for fear of the spread of unfavorable information. Following the disallowance of Publick Occurrences, it was 14 years until another American newspaper was published. The governor of Virginia at the time, Sir William Berkeley, wrote, “I thank God, we have not free schools nor printing; and I hope we shall not have these hundred years. For learning has brought disobedience and heresy and sects into the world; and printing has divulged them and libels the government” (Kahane 1976, 203). Likewise, English law strongly opposed freedom of the press. A major contribution to the shift to a widespread belief in the importance of freedom of the press in the United States was Cato’s Letters, a series of essays written by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon between 1720 and 1723 (Trenchard & Gordon 1724) . The essays consisted of revolutionary political ideas that largely criticized the British government. Cato viewed human nature as rooted in selfishness, suggesting that political decisions were too often made in the deciders best interest, not necessarily that of the public. For this reason, Cato emphasized the need for human rights and liberty as a check against the power of officials in order to avoid the oppression of some. He emphasized the need to fight against tyranny and corruption. While acknowledging the risks of libel, he endorsed citizen rights to free speech and free press. He believed that all citizens should have the ability to criticize the government accurately. The alternative- restricting freedom of the press, he suggested, would be beneficial only for the corrupt (McDaniel). Cato wrote, “There are some truths not fit to be told...But this doctrine only holds true as to private and personal failings; and it is quite otherwise when the crimes of men come to affect the publick” (Trenchard & Gordon 1724) . Cato’s Letters were one of the most familiar essays of time, with people commonly referring to them as a justification and a defense of the rights they deserved, allowing the idea of freedom of the press to gain momentum. The essays were crucial to understanding the importance of and the meaning of the First Amendment, which stemmed from the Virginia Declaration of Rights (Bogen 1983, 446). Another contributing event was the trial of John Peter Zenger, a printer in New York. In 1733, Zenger printed the New York Weekly Journal. The journal criticized the British royal governor of New York, William S. Cosby, accusing him of rigging elections and other corruption. While Zenger did not write the journal, he was sent to jail and accused of libel, which at the time meant publishing information in opposition to the government. At trial, Zenger was represented by Andrew Hamilton. While Hamilton admitted that Zenger did print the journal, he invoked a new principle, that libel was not punishable if true. Hamilton was able to convince the jury of Zenger’s innocence on the grounds that they could not prove that the content of his publication was false (Kahane 1976, 205). The verdict of the case did not have any serious impact on legal precedent because according to the specifics of the case, the jury ruled that Zenger had not printed the journal, even though Hamilton confessed that much. However, the trial did have the immediate effect of an increase in the amount of political satires printed, specifically those opposed to or critiquing some aspect of the government. This put pressure on less popular officials and increased the relative power of journalists (Olson, 2000) . More broadly, as for the world’s first law guaranteeing freedom of the press in Sweden, Sweden’s intellectual climate and institutional structure allowed for the adoption of ideas that were more radical at the time. Within Sweden, as in Western parts of the world, there was a spread of liberal theory. Liberal theory values the individual as necessary within society and politics. Likewise, liberal theory recognizes the need for change over time in order to advance and improve society. In combination with Sweden’s institutional structure, Sweden could more easily advance new laws (Nordin 2017, 139). At the time, the Diet: four estates including the nobility, the clergy, the burghers, and the peasantry, along with opposing political parties: the Hats and the Caps, ran political discussions and had political power. Around sixty percent of adult males would participate in political decisions. The executive, the Council of the Realm, would act according to the Diet. Sweden saw the greatest citizen participation in politics of any country in Europe. Therefore, unlike in other areas of Europe or the world at the time, citizens were more able to advance their own interests, which resulted in greater liberties pertaining to freedom of the press and free speech (Nordin 2017, 140).
Privacy Rights		The right to privacy accentuates the belief that a citizen’s private information should be fundamentally protected from public scrutiny. With the rapid evolution of technology brings the consequence of third party control on personal information, inspiring pivotal debate on a right that is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution: privacy. In 2012 it became evident that due process and regulations on the collection and use of private information have also evolved (Jones, 2009, 1). Expectations on privacy rights fluctuate depending on situational factors and the circumstance of state and federal governments. Historically, both state and federal laws have the power to ultimately limit individual privacy rights with a justification of creating a “safer public (Jones, 2009, 2). Although not specifically spelled out in the constitution, privacy is oftentimes implied, as it is embedded in the first, third, fourth, fifth, ninth and fourteenth amendments. For example, the first amendment clearly outlines that citizens should have the freedom to hold any type of religious belief and keep those beliefs private. The third amendment then protects the right to privacy of a citizen’s home (Brandeis, 1890). The fourth further expands on privacy in regards to the protection of the home from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The fifth legitimizes the right against self-incrimination, justifying the right to private information. Furthermore, the ninth amendment which states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” has been established by the Supreme Court as a right to privacy in cases such as Griswold v Connecticut (1965) (Garrow, 2001, 57). Lastly, the fourteenth amendment, one of the nation’s most cherished amendments, protects citizens from state laws that may infringe upon personal autonomy. In addition, its due process clause is reflective of the fifth amendment in terms of fundamental rights and procedural protections of life liberty and property (Chapman, 2022). From these amendments, the “right to privacy” is inferred or enumerated similarly to other rights like the First Amendment’s right to assembly or the third amendment's right to be free from quartering soldiers. Interestingly enough, a legal definition of privacy does not exist and the world itself is perceived differently across international borders. In the United Kingdom Calcutt Committee on privacy suggests its own definition for privacy in Britain being “The right of the individual to be protected against intrusion into his personal life or affairs, or those of his family by direct physical means, or by publication of information” (Jones, 2009, 1). Through another lens, Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis, in their 1890 The Right to Privacy article, characterized tangible and intangible aspects of privacy. They concluded that the fundamental purpose of their law review was to highlight that “the individual shall have full protection in person and in property,” acknowledging the fluidity of social, economic and political changes (Garrow, 2001, 64). Most specifically the justices discussed “the right to be let alone,” while examining cases of defamation, property and patents. Brandeis characterizes threats to protection of privacy as invasions of the “sacred precincts of private and domestic life” (Brandeis-Warren, 197, 1890). However, both Warren and Brandeis summarized a vague set of limitations of the newly coined right to privacy, emphasizing the importance of general or public interest. For example, the right to privacy cannot prohibit any publication of information that would be advantageous to the public such as a leader's fitness for federal office (Brandeis-Warren, 196, 1890). Some of the most noteworthy and high profile cases acknowledging the need for protection of privacy other than previously mentioned Griswold v Connecticut are Roe v. Wade (1973), and Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Another major decision further considering a citizen’s right to privacy was held in a 6-3 ruling (Lawrence v Texas) that citizens are protected by the constitution to have sexual privacy, consensual, adult sexual intimacy in the home without government intrusion. Being so, the Texas "homosexual conduct" law was declared uncconsitutional and thereafter same-sex sexual activity became legal in every U.S. state and territory (Jones, 2009, 17). However, prior to 9/11 governmental interference regarding privacy was not as much of a widespread concern. According to Pew Research Center currently, approximately 63% of Americans believe that the government collects data on their daily lives and that they have little control over how these entities use their personal information. The public continues to express worries regarding their digital privacy. These concerns first stemmed from legislation during the “War on Terror”, that impacted all sectors of life. The New York City Police Department along with Departments in other majorly populated cities vouched to install surveillance cameras on the streets to halt both terrorism and street crimes (Jones, 2009, 18). The NYCPD alone installed approximately 500 surveillance cameras in the Brooklyn Borough. Terrorism became an issue of national security fully executed by the federal government. Therefore, now rather than state governments and local leaders’ influence of privacy rights, Washington launched strict prevention programs and legislation like the Total Information Awareness project (TIA), The Patriot Act and the Terrorist Information and Prevention Systems (TIPS) (Pozen, 2016, 236). The collection of average citizens data like phone numbers, credit card transactions, online activity financial records and medical records would be categorized analytically to measure linkage that individual could have with terrorism. In addition the TIA was also given the ability by law to gather information on its own including consumer data. However in 2003 over concerns about civil rights, this initiative was stopped until proven that it is needed. However, the most controversial legislation, championed in 2002 by Attorney General John Ashcrof, was the Patriot act. Its notable provisions being: enhanced sentences for terrorist related crimes, elimination of the statute of limitation for certain terrorist crimes, ability of law enforcement to obtain a warrant anywhere a terror related incident occurs (Pozen, 2016, 237). Many critics such as Belgian sociologist Jean-Claude Paye (2006) claim that the patriot act has infiltrated emergency initiatives permanently into the U.S federal law, giving the executive branch an overwhelming amount of power over private rights (Jones, 2009, 19). For example, under the Patriot Act's article 215 and 216 the government has the ability to conduct mass surveillance of Americans' telephone records while also allowing federal judges to issue warrants in order to acquire any exchange of electronic connection data. Is there a way to prevent terrorism but protect civil liberty and privacy rights at the same time? If citizens were more informed of their privacy rights, a solution to this highly debated discrepancy would be more attainable. There is an obvious lack of understanding when it comes to privacy laws among the average American citizen, as 78% of them stated they understand very little or nothing at all about the regulations surrounding their data privacy (Auxier, 2019). Overall, as we as citizens become more engulfed by a data driven environment, “the right to privacy” will continue evolving as a core issue of debate in Washington. George Orwell, in his “cautionary commentary” 1984, carefully warns his readers of their dwindling rights: “ They could spy upon you night and day, but if you kept your head, you could still outwit them. With all their cleverness, they had never mastered the secret of finding out what another human being was thinking.” Sources: Chapman, Nathan, S, Yoshino, Kenji, “The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.” Interpretation: The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause - The National Constitution Center (2022) Accessed June 13, 2022. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-xiv/clauses/701. GARROW, DAVID J. “Privacy and the American Constitution.” Social Research 68, no. 1 (2001): 55–82. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40971438. Head, Tom. “Does the Government Guarantee a Right to Privacy?” ThoughtCo. ThoughtCo, October 28, 2019. Last modified October 28, 2019. Accessed June 13, 2022. https://www.thoughtco.com/right-to-privacy-history-721174. Jones, Jesse. “The Birth of Big Brother: Privacy Rights in a Post-9/11 World.” West Texas A&M University, 2009. Last modified 2009. Accessed June 13, 2022. https://www.wtamu.edu/webres/File/Academics/College%20of%20Education%20and%20Social%20Scie nces/Department%20of%20Political%20Science%20and%20Criminal%20Justice/PBJ/2009/1n1/1n1_03J ones.pdf. Pozen, David E. “Privacy-Privacy Tradeoffs.” The University of Chicago Law Review 83, no. 1 (2016): 221–47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43741598. Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy”, 1890
Voting Rights and Suffrage		The original formation of the right to vote within the Constitution was motivated by a worry as to who would maintain control within the political sphere. The framers of the Constitution realized that the right to vote is a fundamental component of democracy and liberty. To this extent, they did not want to fully restrict voting rights of minority groups, however, they also worried that non-property owners could construct a majority over property owners if they were to allow voting rights to be expanded to all. Because of this dilemma, the framers originally gave states the power to enact their own voter restrictions (The Library of Congress). After years of discrimination with regard to suffrage, the Selma to Mongomery March took place. Many Americans were angry with the little weight the 15th Amendment actually held in the South. On March 7th, 1965, more than 600 Americans marched through Selma Alabama, led by John Lewis, a political activist. They marched to peacefully protest the ongoing racial discrimination. The protesters faced violence from state troopers, and many were unrightfully arrested. The sight of unwarranted and brutal violence ultimately motivated many to fight for racial equality and more equitable voting rights. Martin Luther King, Jr. was among those who were arrested. He had helped to rally the state for change when he came to the city to speak in January and expressed his support for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee who worked to register black voters (A&E Television Networks, 2009). Evidently, the call for racial equality played a large role in the recognition of the importance of voting rights. Equally important were the forces that expanded voting rights for women. Beginning in 1840, when Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were barred from a conference in London because they were female, they began to fight for women's rights. In 1948, they established the United State’s first women’s rights convention in order to express their grievances, specifically with women’s lack of voting rights. This led to the formation of the National Suffrage Association by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton where they argued for a universal suffrage amendment which would include women. Following was the creation of the American Woman Suffrage Association, which operated on a more moderate platform and even succeeded to win suffrage for women in some states, as they operated on a state by state basis. This led to the establishment of the National American Woman Suffrage Association, an integration of the two previous associations. After many protests and amendment proposals from 1878 until 1919, women were finally granted the right to vote by the 19th Amendment (The Library of Congress). References: History.com Editors. “Voting Rights Act of 1965.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 9 Nov. 2009, www.history.com/topics/black-history/voting-rights-act. The Founders and the Vote : The Right to Vote : Elections : Classroom Materials at the Library of Congress : Library of Congress. The Library of Congress. (n.d.). https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/elections/right-to-vote/the-founders-and-the-vote/.