Separating Freedom and Anarchy

The line that separates freedom and unbridled anarchy is thin. Laws of the land are meant precisely to delineate the two from getting mixed up. Freedom has often been confused with free and easy; Freedom is the right to be wrong at times and not the right to do wrong. The struggle to strike the right balance between freedom and protection emanates from this misplaced perception. I will try to illustrate this conflict with a few examples. Let me make one thing clear, though. I do not want to toe the line of either the 'freedom' lobbyists or the occasional big brother attitude of the government.

Let us consider a recent incident in Seattle when some overzealous activists turned their protests against WTO into an organized melee of looting and destruction of public property. The government had to step in and invoke the laws of the land to protect the law-abiding citizens from facing the wrath of so-called peaceful protestors. This is a classic example that illustrates the predicament faced by the authorities as to when the freedom of expression stops and the enforcement of laws becomes a necessity.

On the other extreme is the case of book banning. The most common examples of book censorship are in schools and public libraries, mostly involving children's literature. Political groups attempt to remove books from library shelves because those books use 'naughty' words, or do not have happy endings. Little Red Riding Hood was the 24th most banned book in the early 90's mostly because she had a bottle of wine in her basket. Many organizations demanded a non-alcohol Little Red. There may be people that feel that such a tight control to regulate what children read is essential to fostering a healthy generation. The issue again is how to demarcate when intellectual freedom transgresses into intellectual corruption and who decides on the demarcation. Such opinionated judgment introduces ambiguity, arouses partisan and inflammatory feelings on both the sides and makes it extremely difficult to maintain the balance between freedom and preserving order. Another realm where freedom and protection of laws come into direct conflict is in cyberspace. Recent incidents of destructive electronic buffoonery underscore the importance of having a policing mechanism in place to protect laymen from getting "e-hurt" by a few ill-minded individuals. Some activists view this as a direct assault on their personal freedom. However, one must bear in mind that law justly applied is the cradle of freedom and not its enemy.

Let me cite another instance where freedom of expression gets extended beyond its defined domain and treads on abuse territory. The American flag represents this nation. It embodies the spirit of this nation. Occasionally, some people resort to Flag burning as an expression of protest. The first amendment clearly protects this right of free expression. However, the flag is also a symbol of this nation, doesn't burning it represent hatred for the nation? Is that hatred, then, protected under the constitution?

As the body passing laws, the Congress has an onerous task of balancing extreme views on either side of the fence. Accomplishing this goal invariably tends to veer towards appeasement of one side and antagonizing the other. Political color is given to even genuine intentions. Take for example the Gun control initiative. Taking guns off the streets is possibly the best gift the Congress could give the children of this country but in the name of freedom, the gun lobby shoots down - no pun intended - any initiative.

Both the freedom activists and the Government must understand that the goal of laws is not to abolish or restrain but to preserve and enlarge freedom. Where there is no law, there is no freedom.  Liberty is like sacred fire and laws act as the firemen. It is for us to let the society not get engulfed by flames of frenzy, because freedom is not passed by inheritance from one generation to another. We have to preserve it from extinction.