2 responses paper - Case Study Example

Public Interest Law Response to the TSA Body Scanner Commentary According to the Rutherford institute commentary, the Transportation Security administration has adopted a policy that allows the body scanners to be used in fostering security. The technology allows those in the security department to view passengers as nude, regardless of the clothes they are wearing. However, the commentary presents the adoption of the technology as a move that intrudes into privacy of people, breaching the right to privacy of the American citizens.

The commentary is assertive that people should not give up their right to privacy for the sake of fostering security amidst the mounting threats of terrorism. Acceptance of the technology is a way in which the democracy is being overlooked, further dismissing it as unnecessary and inconveniencing. I do not concur with the article. Obviously, the issue is a contest between privacy and security. In resolving the issue, I think it is important for one to question what matters between the two. Here, the answer is simple; breaching the right to privacy is not as serious as disregarding security.

For one obvious reason, whereas breaching privacy may only inconvenience people, overlooking the pertinence of security would not only cause inconveniences, but also lose of lives, in the case of terrorist bombing. Clearly, it is a contest that touches on the right to life, as well. In my view, a lot of people have lost lives as a result of terrorism. The memories of September 11 attacks are still fresh and speak loudly. Besides, It cannot be disputed that airport security remains one of the issues of serious concern for most airports in the world since it also touches on safety.

As such, airport security comprises of various methods and techniques that are aimed at protecting aircrafts, as well as airports from criminal activities. This way, security protects the travelers, the airport employees and the freight. Airport security is aimed at curbing criminal activities that pertain to hijacking, destruction of aircrafts and airports, and assault on employee and passenger. Response to Brandon Raub CommentaryThe Rutherford commentary covers the case of Brandon Raub, who was taken by FBI agents and forcibly detained in the psychiatric ward.

The reason give is that Brandon posted song lyrics, as well as personal political views, on his Facebook page. According to the Commentary, the issue elicited a public outcry, demanding for his release. However, the court would still disregard the fact that the interpretations of the content on Facebook would be interpreted out of the context. Consequently, Brandon was sentenced to confinement in the psychiatric ward for further 30 days. However, it did not take long for the case to be reviewed.

The government’s case against Brandon was dismissed for lacking credibility. Rutherford institute had played a crucial role in ensuring that justice was served. I side with Rutherford Institute over Brandon’s case. The fact that the FBI agents went over to Brandon’s home to take him by force is a violation of liberty; hence, a breach of the stipulation of the First amendment. What particularly qualifies this point is the fact that the forcible arrest and detention was baseless, while monitoring social media communication is in itself a breach of privacy.

Besides, the Brandon’s case may also be considered as a deliberate attempt by the government authority to limit the freedom of speech and media freedom. In my view, what may have attracted his arrest and detention was the fact that his posting on the theme of politics. Otherwise, the implications of the Brandon’s Facebook postings are too petty to elicit the FBI intervention. Work citedRutherford Institute. TSA Whole Body Scanners. 2012. Web. December 2, 2012.