An unelected ruler in a certain country, in the name of safety, has taken away people's right to free speech, to comment on, criticize the ruler's policies or to voice concerns. People's blogs and messages are subject to word-by-word monitoring and censorship. The right to assemble and gather for a peaceful demostration is denied. So is the right to use the Internet to learn basic facts on international sites. 


The ruler claims that these actions, even though sacrificing people's individual liberty, are necessary to protect the country and ensure public safety, to ensure 'societal stability'. The ruler wants his own stable rule over the people. Anyone who dares to voice concerns, or different opinions, to report a disease that harms publich health or to express feelings about a certain individual or event, is reprimanded, 'taken into custody' or worse made to 'disappear'.  

In this environment, one's past comments, writings, or blogs written or published years ago, as long as deemed disagreeable according to the current ruling authorities may be cause for take down, or imprisonment. 

Are people safe? The answer is clear. Those people who trade their liberty for perceived safety have lost both. In the above example, which is current China, safety of the people is provided by the Chinese Communist Party-controlled police. Safety is what suits the party, not the public. 


 

Benjamin Franklin wrote 'Those who give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.'