RESTRÂNGEREA LIBERTĂȚILOR INDIVIDUALE PENTRU MAI MULTĂ SIGURANȚĂ PUBLICĂ: UN PARADOX POSTMODERN
The Restriction of Individual Freedoms for more Public Security: A Postmodern Paradox
Among the new contemporary challenges brought by globalization is the need for more safety in public space. Under the pressure of internationalized terrorism, the crisis of immigrants and new worrying trends in the online environment that make the virtual space a battle front for hybrid or cyberwar. Among the attempts to protect and increase public safety, attention is drawn to the proposal discussed in more and more states to restrict individual freedoms to ensure security. Although, at first glance this approach may seem an alternative, the political, legal, social and ethical implications are many and require an elaborate debate. If we remember the many sacrifices and the long period of time when man has fought for the recognition of individual rights, it is very difficult to understand the reasons for proposing this exchange between individual freedoms and public security. After an analysis, even superficial, we can see that this negotiation between freedom and security would not be possible without a tendentious, debatable and sustained media coverage, but with priority in the online environment. It is also obvious that any initiative attempting to restrict individual freedoms in favour of public security would be doomed to failure if it were not authorized by a popular vote, or at least by persons who were elected to represent the people. But if we consider the very subtle methods of manipulation by which public opinion is influenced today and the impact of some interest groups that have access to information and controls certain areas of the media, may have we ask with concern, if not somehow the renunciation of freedoms for more security is not another form to maintain or increase the control over the masses. That is why, in the present paper, we first propose to present some arguments to show the indivisible link between individual freedoms and public safety, then to show that the vote of a majority can cancel out the balance between individual freedoms and public safety with the purpose to give priority to safety in relation with freedom, and finally, we’ll draw attention to the manipulation tendencies that want to present the exchange of liberties with security as acceptable or even necessary.
• Burcea Nelu ed., Jurnalul Libertății de Conștiință 2014, IARSIC, Franța, 2014.
• Copleston Frederick, Istoria filosofiei, I. Grecia şi Roma, Bucureşti, Edit. All, 2008.
• Dissescu C., Drept constituţional, ed. a 3-a, Ed. Librăriei SOCEC- CO, Societate anonimă, Bucureşti, 1915.
• Onișor C., Frunzăverde S., Arta strategică a securității și integrării europene, Ed. A’92, Iași, 2002.
• Patapievici Horia Roman, Partea nevăzută decide totul, Humanitas, București, 2015.
• Sacks Jonathan, Not in God’s name, Maggid, Jerusalem, 2016.
•• Adrese web
• http://www.nos.iem.ro/bitstream/handle/123456789/1147/14-Tomescu%20Ina.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y, accesat la data de 29.09.2018.