New Survey Finds Majority Who Believe It Is Sometimes Necessary For Government To Sacrifice Freedoms

[OKIsItJustMe]

Last edited Wed Dec 30, 2015, 06:38 PM - Edit history (2)

Source: Associated Press

http://www.apnorc.org/PDFs/Security/Civil%20Liberties%20and%20Security%20Release%20.pdf

[font face=Serif][font size=5]New Survey Finds Majority Who Believe It Is Sometimes Necessary For Government To Sacrifice Freedoms In The Fight Against Terrorism[/font]

[font size=4]Survey conducted after Paris and San Bernardino attacks finds a majority of respondents from both parties think it is acceptable for the government to analyze the Internet activities and communications of American citizens without a warrant[/font]

[font size=3]Chicago, IL, December 30, 2015—A majority of Americans say it can be necessary for the government to sacrifice freedoms to fight terrorism, according to a new national survey conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Fifty-four percent of Americans say it can be necessary, 45 percent disagree. And about half of Americans think it is acceptable to allow warrantless government analysis of internet activities and communications—even of American citizens—in order to keep an eye out for suspicious activity, but about 3 in 10 are against this type of government investigation.

"In the aftermath of the attacks in Paris and California, we are seeing the public's concern about being personally affected by terrorism evolve. For instance, 20 percent of Americans are very concerned that they or a family member could be a victim of a terrorist attack, up from 10 percent in 2013," said Trevor Tompson, director of The AP-NORC Center. "The survey also found that respondents are just as concerned about attacks by Islamic extremists as they are about home-grown terrorists."

Key findings from the survey include:

• Only about a quarter of Americans say protecting their rights and freedoms as citizens is more critical than being kept secure. Four in 10 say safety is more important than civil liberties. Three in 10 say both are equally important.


• Two-thirds of Republicans favor the analysis of internet activity and communication by the government without a warrant. Fifty-five percent of Democrats and only 40 percent of independents agree.


• …

[/font][/font]

Read more: http://www.apnorc.org/PDFs/Security/Civil%20Liberties%20and%20Security%20Release%20.pdf

---

From the survey brief:



[hr]



It looks like “Democrats” are definitely not radical leftists!

[nyabingi]

1. If we have a few more of these

attacks we can pin on the Islamic radical group du jour then our progression towards complete police state will be complete. We'll throw up our collective hands and say "To hell with the Constitution, save us!!"

We're damn-near close to it right now. Anyone else notice how our police officers are looking more like Army Rangers rather than Barney Fife?

[yeoman6987]

34. I don't know how the Russia attacks are going to be looked at

It's been very quiet in the news about it even though the Islamic state took credit.

[CJCRANE]

2. They hate us for our...um...lack of freedoms..?

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. “there ought to be limits to freedom” — George W. Bush

http://www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/may99/052699a.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-11/29/002r-112999-idx.html

[madville]

5. I believe they hate infidels first and foremost

Freedoms probably factor in somewhere farther down the list.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. You know… I don’t think that’s #1 either…

I think it’s primarily our foreign policy.

http://www.heritage.org/research/projects/enemy-detention/al-qaeda-declarations

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Al-Qaeda: Declarations & Acts of War[/font]

[font size=3]Al-Qaeda declared war on the United States and its allies two times before the attacks on September 11, 2001. Those two declarations came in the form of fatwas, a type of Islamic religious decree.

The First Fatwa

In August of 1996, Osama bin Laden issued his first fatwa, a 30-page polemic entitled "Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places," against the United States and Israel, and it was published in a London newspaper called Al Quds al Arabi.

The central premise of this fatwa is that "the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity, and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators." He chronicles the various "injustices" and concludes that, "It is no longer possible to be quiet. It is not acceptable to give a blind eye to this matter."

Bin Laden says that there is "no more important duty than pushing the American enemy out of the holy land,"and he calls on his Muslim brothers to concentrate on "destroying, fighting and killing the enemy until, by the Grace of Allah, it is completely defeated." He warns fellow Jihadists that, due to "the imbalance of power between our armed forces and the enemy forces, a suitable means of fighting must be adopted i.e. using fast moving light forces that work under complete secrecy."

…[/font][/font]

[fredamae]

3. Quick Q:

How do we know this is a real poll and not "created" and if it Is real- they didn't poll every single citizen in the country on This question...it ain't a majority proved, imo

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. “…they didn't poll every single citizen in the country…”

Last edited Wed Dec 30, 2015, 06:40 PM - Edit history (3)

No—because there is no need to.

…

The nationwide poll was conducted December 10-13, 2015, using the AmeriSpeak Panel, the probability-based panel of NORC at the University of Chicago. Online and telephone interviews using landlines and cell phones were conducted with 1,042 adults.

…

(For comparison, a typical presidential election poll will have about 500 respondents.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

…

[font size=4]Calculations assuming random sampling[/font]

This section will briefly discuss the standard error of a percentage, the corresponding confidence interval, and connect these two concepts to the margin of error. For simplicity, the calculations here assume the poll was based on a simple random sample from a large population.

The standard error of a reported proportion or percentage p measures its accuracy, and is the estimated standard deviation of that percentage. It can be estimated from just p and the sample size, n, if n is small relative to the population size, using the following formula:|5|



…

[font size=4]Different confidence levels[/font]

For a simple random sample from a large population, the maximum margin of error is a simple re-expression of the sample size n. The numerators of these equations are rounded to two decimal places.

Margin of error at 99% confidence

Margin of error at 95% confidence

Margin of error at 90% confidence

Margin of error at X confidence (See Inverse error function)

If an article about a poll does not report the margin of error, but does state that a simple random sample of a certain size was used, the margin of error can be calculated for a desired degree of confidence using one of the above formulae. Also, if the 95% margin of error is given, one can find the 99% margin of error by increasing the reported margin of error by about 30%.

As an example of the above, a random sample of size 400 will give a margin of error, at a 95% confidence level, of 0.98/20 or 0.049 - just under 5%. A random sample of size 1600 will give a margin of error of 0.98/40, or 0.0245 - just under 2.5%. A random sample of size 10 000 will give a margin of error at the 95% confidence level of 0.98/100, or 0.0098 - just under 1%.

…

So,

• Margin of error at 99% confidence ? ± 4%. (1.29/√1042)
• Margin of error at 95% confidence ? ± 3%. (0.98/√1042)
• etc.

[GeorgeGist]

6. LIke the freedom to destroy with impunity?

[ybbor]

7. This mindset is very troubling

I know of some very liberal people who have said close to the same thing during the Snowden situation. It blew my mind. They (TPTB) are terrorizing the populace into conceding their very liberties. Orwell was pretty much right on, if just a few years too early.

Sad.

[tularetom]

8. Baaa Baaa Baaa

We might as well change that line in the national anthem, the "home of the brave" because it sure as shit has no meaning anymore.

[old guy]

9. Ben Franklin would disagree.

[sarge43]

11. Somewhere in the great beyond old Ben must be doing a face palm

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[malthaussen]

35. You should read up on the context of that quote sometime.

You might be amused.

-- Mal

[OKIsItJustMe]

56. Thank you…

http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century

…

WITTES: It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means.

…

[malthaussen]

58. They're being gentle.

It was said in the context of a cheap political hack trick. Meanwhile, settlers on the frontier were being massacred by pissed-off natives.

-- Mal

[getagrip_already]

12. no mention of guns.... or second amendment.. of course they supported it

If either term had been a part of the survey, wonder what the result would be?

[Township75]

16. So they only asked gun owners? Where is that in the article?

Can you copy and paste the segment

[getagrip_already]

36. no, but if they had...

the results would have been much different. There are polls out there to prove it.

[Scuba]

14. New Survey Finds Majority of Americans are Gutless Cowards - there, fixed it for you!

[frizzled]

15. This is all down to framing. Freedom from fear of terrorism is a freedom, too.

If only America could frame the gun issue as the freedom to walk around without getting shot by an idiot.

[NutmegYankee]

27. I read about this in The Handmaids Tale

There is more than one kind of freedom, said Aunt Lydia. Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from. Don't underrate it. (5.10-11)

Never thought I'd see someone on the left actually propose such totalitarian bullshit though...

[frizzled]

30. Any security whatever is totalitarian? Police are totalitarian? Laws?

Some freedoms contradict other freedoms, and you don't get to dismiss that simple fact as "totalitarian bullshit".

[NutmegYankee]

31. Security has been the excuse of every totalitarian state.

You have freedom to do things that do not harm other people. No one has a right to shoot another person except in self defense. The same goes from many other "freedom from" examples. The act you seek to be free from is already illegal and in violation of societal standards, falling under the definition of malum in se.

What "freedom from" creates are malum prohibitum laws that restrict otherwise innocent acts. Yes, it's totalitarian bullshit. Always will be.

[frizzled]

32. Again, it's all in the framing.

Claiming that something is a 'freedom' gives no guide to whether it should be allowed, since many freedoms can be re-framed as something that negatively affects the freedom of others.

Freedom to murder (no laws) versus freedom from being murdered = prohibitions against murder.

Freedom to have a gun (gun rights) versus freedom to walk around without worrying about being shot = prohibitions against guns.

Free speech versus freedom from the impact of hate speech = hate speech laws.

EVERY ACTION THAT IMPACTS OTHER PEOPLE CAN BE RE-FRAMED AS A CLAIM TO A PARTICULAR FREEDOM.

It's simply whether you place the focus on the doer, or those who are affected by the action.

This isn't hard to understand, surely.

[NutmegYankee]

33. You are arguing against freedom in the latter two examples.

There is no freedom to murder - everyone has a right to life. The latter two examples however are not freedoms, but a loss of it. For example, one can ever be guaranteed safety from getting hurt. It just isn't possible and even the most totalitarian of societies failed in this aspect. Sure, crime was lower, but not nonexistent. Your third case is an argument against free speech, with a clear failure to understand that what is considered hate speech can be changed on a whim. There is no right to not be emotionally hurt by the speech of another person.

It isn't hard to understand -I just don't subscribe to totalitarian bullshit thinking.

[OKIsItJustMe]

37. OK, so how about this freedom?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …

According to the survey, Americans (on the whole) seem to feel that Muslims are less deserving of free exercise of their religion than Christians are…



In what way does their right to freely exercise their religion negatively affect the freedom(s) of others?

[frizzled]

39. I don't see the point in freedom of religion, to be perfectly honest

We know that all religion is made up crap, so there's no particular advantage to supporting it. Belief in God is simply false. Societies don't need it.

Free speech includes the right to speak nonsense, so there's no need to privilege nonsense with the word "God" in it over other kinds of nonsense.

That aside, you could easily say that all else being equal, the Islamic religion seems to be worse than some others. It negatively affects women more than other religions. Islamic literalism is baked in. If most people in the country were Muslim, gay rights and women's rights would be harmed.

[OKIsItJustMe]

43. An interesting response…

Surveys tell us the majority of American adults believe in God. So, it seems that many do not “know that all religion is made up crap.”

Regardless, I think that many people find in their religions justification for what they already believe. So, for example, one “Conservative” Jew may oppose same-sex marriage, while another “Conservative” Jew supports it.

“Conservative” Christians may oppose abortion, carrying signs reading, “Thou Shalt Not Kill” and support capital punishment, carrying signs reading, “An Eye for an Eye.”

The First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees that they are free to practice their beliefs (within limits) but that the Congress won’t pass a law favoring one religion over another.

[bananas]

47. That's why it's in the very First Amendment to the Constitution:

to prevent asshole totalitarian control freaks from stomping on the rights of people they don't understand or care about:

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.[1]

[frizzled]

48. Circular argument. Why is there a right to propagate nonsense?

I disagree that having guns should be a right, too.

[bananas]

50. It's not an argument, it's an explanation.

Whoosh!

[frizzled]

51. If the explanation is "The Koran, sorry, Constitution says so"

then it isn't a very good explanation.

[OKIsItJustMe]

55. Circular reasoning–What is “nonsense?”

“Nonsense” is in the eye of the beholder, and generally means, “something which I don’t believe.”

I believe that we are in grave danger of killing ourselves off through “climate change” which we have caused. People who claim otherwise, I believe, are propagating “nonsense.”

For their part, they believe that I am propagating “nonsense.” Now, how shall we determine who is allowed the freedom of speech?

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
― James Madison

“Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost.”
― Neil Gaiman

Here’s the way it works. We tolerate fools, so long as we are free to propagate wisdom. With time, I believe that the truth wins out.

[frizzled]

64. So truth doesn't exist. I reject that claim.

Religious people believe in made up shit. Rejecting is is progress.

[OKIsItJustMe]

66. Truth does exist. I did not claim that it didn’t.

Lots of people believe in “made up shit” of different varieties.

You cannot eradicate ideas you don’t like by legislating against them. That only tends to reinforce them. (The Soviets, for example, were not very successful in eliminating religious beliefs.)

[frizzled]

67. You can eradicate some ideas, though, depending on the idea.

It would be a mistake to conflate scientific ideas with religion. Reality can't be denied, religion is made up.

Your link doesn't say anything about the effect eradicating religion had. Actually, Soviet Russia became one of the least religious nations on earth. Christianity has had a comeback since then, but they are still almost all non observant.

That only tends to reinforce them.

This doesn't make a lot of sense. Promoting ideas will tend to reinforce them, which is why the religious want to proselytize.

For another example, China has always cracked down on the promotion of religion, and the proportion of the religious in China is also pretty small.

If we accept some ideas are harmful and nonsensical, it makes sense to do what we can to make sure they don't spread, so long as it's consonant with our ideas of basic human rights.

[OKIsItJustMe]

68. Suppressing ideas does not work well

It has been said that one of the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union was Pope John Paul II.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/03/pope.gorbachev/index.html?_s=PM:WORLD

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Gorbachev: Pope was 'example to all of us'[/font]

Monday, April 4, 2005 Posted: 7:32 AM EDT (1132 GMT)

[font size=4]MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev said Sunday that Pope John Paul II's "devotion to his followers is a remarkable example to all of us."[/font]

[font size=3]Gorbachev, who once said the collapse of the Iron Curtain would have been impossible without John Paul II, said the pope condemned communism the first time the two met in 1989, shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall. (World reaction)

The pontiff, who began his papacy in 1978 when the Soviets dominated his Polish homeland and Eastern Europe, was a harsh critic of communism and offered support to those fighting for change from within.

"We had a really interesting, albeit perhaps too emotional conversation," Gorbachev said. "He told me he ... was very, very critical of communism.

…[/font][/font]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See%E2%80%93Soviet_Union_relations#John_Paul_II

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Holy See–Soviet Union relations[/font]

…

[font size=4]John Paul II[/font]

[font size=3]John Paul II has long been credited with being instrumental in bringing down communism in Catholic Eastern Europe by being the spiritual inspiration behind its downfall and a catalyst for a peaceful revolution in Poland. In February 2004, the Pope was even nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize honoring his life's work in opposing communism and helping to reshape the world after the fall of the Soviet Union. However, there has been much debate among historians about the realistic significance of John Paul II’s opposition to communism in the Soviet regime’s eventual downfall. While most scholars agree that Pope John Paul II’s intervention was an influential in ending the Polish Communist Party’s rule, there remains much disagreement in his role in the collapse of the USSR. Historians differ on their opinions on the significance of John Paul II’s influence as opposed to that of other economic and political factors. Thus, it is necessary to investigate the relative importance of John Paul II’s role in the collapse of Eastern European communism by analyzing the historical events beginning with his election to the papacy in 1978 and ending with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

…

Despite warnings from Leonid Brezhnev, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, not to interfere in Poland, the new pope visited his homeland within the first year of his papacy. On June 2, 1979, John Paul II made his first papal visit to Poland. Three million people came to the capital to greet him.^|10| The pope held Mass publicly in the Victory Square in Kraków, which was usually reserved for state-sponsored events. In the Lenin Shipyard, John Paul II held Mass in memory of the Polish workers who had been killed in a 1970 strike, carrying a large wooden cross which some took to symbolize the burden of communism on the Polish people.^|11| Historian John Lewis Gaddis identified the 1979 papal visit as the “trigger that led to communism’s collapse worldwide” due to its profound effect on the morale of the Polish people.^|12|

…

On December 1, 1989, the pope met with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. It was the first time that a Catholic pope had met with a Soviet leader. The two leaders agreed to establish diplomatic relations between the Vatican and the Soviet Union. Gorbachev also pledged to allow greater religious freedom within the Soviet Union. Many saw the meeting as a symbolic end to the philosophical conflict between the Soviet Union and the Vatican.^|21| It certainly showed a growing willingness on both sides to cooperate.

…[/font][/font]

On the whole, I think “freedom of religion” is much more successful in eliminating religion than attempts at active suppression are. (Consider, for example, the extreme example of martyrs. The Roman Empire did not do a very good job of suppressing Christianity. 19^th century America did not do a very good job of suppressing Mormonism. The Soviet Union tried to suppress religion, and that apparently factored into its downfall.)

[bananas]

44. "Framing" is a marketing/PR/propaganda term used by totalitarian regimes and bullshit artists.

"Framing" totalitarianism as freedom is the kind of thing manipulative control freaks do.

[frizzled]

49. Name one totalitarian regime that says "Framing"

Try constructing an argument without using buzzwords like "totalitarian".

[NutmegYankee]

57. They used similar terms but not "framing" since English wasn't their language.

A quick look at the quotes of Joseph Goebbels will provide what you seek.

[bananas]

45. WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH: "Framing" straight from 1984

And let's not forget the Two Minutes Hate against Manny Goldstein!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

[frizzled]

65. Your "right to a gun" does infringe on my right to avoid guns.

1984 comparisons to this obvious point are, frankly, fucking stupid.

[awoke_in_2003]

17. Mix equal parts Huxley and Orwell

and you have what we have become- both from government surveillance growth, and us allowing it to happen while being hypnotized by entertainment.

[Feeling the Bern]

18. This hurts my brain.

[Gore1FL]

19. If we have to, let's start with gun "rights".... n/t

[tabasco]

20. Oh, great.

[blackspade]

21. We Americans are becoming a pathetic bunch.

Apparently the new way to defend freedom is to give it away so that corporations can make even more money.

[PSPS]

22. "The terrorists won" when the "Patriot Act" was passed.

If we were to put every codicil and amendment to a plebiscite, we would go back to slavery and lynchings.

[rockfordfile]

23. Republicans have always been like that.

I'm a democrat and I would never support the "sacrifice" of our freedoms. I don't any democrat that would. Strange poll.

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. Statistically speaking…

“The people I know” makes a really lousy sample.


I forget when I first ran into this. During some election, I knew that (so and so…) was going to win, because, everyone I knew was voting for him…

In the first place, I don’t know that many people.
In the second place, the people I “know” generally think like I do…

[hughee99]

38. If you're not sure that any democrat would be willing to sacrifice any freedoms in exchange

for safety, please just read a gun related thread. Either that or just read the same poll in the OP but look at the "Democrats" stats.

People tend to justify sacrificing freedoms by convincing themselves that, for certain freedoms, we don't really need them, shouldn't have them in the first place, or they aren't really protected by the constitution if you interpret it the right way.

[Fiendish Thingy]

25. ...and that, in a nutshell, is why I moved to Canada

Along with Obama's failure to prosecute the crimes of the Banksters and the war crimes of the Bush administration.

[leveymg]

26. Bin Laden won. Limits on expression next.

After that? Preventative detention. Mass roundups. It gets even worse. All it will take is another mass casualty attack in America and the wrong President and a willing Congress.

[frizzled]

29. Osama didn't give a crap about any of that stuff.

Read his declaration of war, at least. Why don't Americans understand why they were attacked?

[ileus]

28. There's a quote somewhere about giving up freedom for security....

As for me and my family we'll not voluntarily give up any.

[The2ndWheel]

40. I would think most people have something that

they would be willing to trade civil liberties for. What that is just changes person to person. Usually that something will also be something that that person doesn't like, which is why they would be willing to give it up. Which is also why nothing really ever gets done about anything, or there's a fight about everything, because it's always the other person having to sacrifice, and nobody really likes sacrificing for the greater good.

[Hortensis]

41. Scary.

[geek tragedy]

42. this is really meaningless, since it's weighing one platitude against another.

We sacrifice freedom when we install traffic lights for public safety, but no one outside the extreme libertarian fringe sees that as a bad decision.

What kind of, and how much, freedom, and safety from what risk are the key questions.

[JackRiddler]

46. I agree that government should sacrifice its freedoms.

[Quantess]

52. I believe it!

Even my own opinion has adjusted, after the recent terror attacks. I am feeling more lenient toward government surveillance if it means preventing terrorism. I admit it, and I know I'm not the only one.

[d_r]

53. Wtf

The difference in response to protect religious freedom of Christians and mormons

[dembotoz]

54. sometimes totalitarian governments don't seize power sometimes the people give it to them

[Doctor_J]

59. well, every law that's passed is a sacrifice of freedom

One of my local laws takes away my freedom to drive 75 mph in a school zone. So that's a freedom I am willing to give up for safety. So?

[OKIsItJustMe]

60. Not every law which is passed is a sacrifice of freedom

The example my American History teacher gave us was, “Your freedom to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose.”

The example you give, like his, is a balancing of “freedoms.”

However, for what it is worth, the “freedom” to drive at whatever speed you wish is not something guaranteed you by the US Constitution. In fact, you have no “right” to drive a car whatsoever; it is a privilege. (After training and examination) you may be granted a license to drive, which can be revoked; unlike (for example) the right to free speech.


On the other hand, the Bill of Rights guarantees certain rights to the people (as do other amendments to the US Constitution.)

In this case, we might pay close attention to the 1st and 4th amendments:

Amendment I

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.

…

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

…

[warrprayer]

62. I guess democrats aren't included

In their sanpling, as not a single commenter here agrees with the "majority"

[Nye Bevan]

63. Of course it is necessary to sacrifice certain freedoms.

Does anyone here seriously object to large backpacks being banned from the Times Square New Years Eve celebrations, for example?