The Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unjustified government searches and seizures. However, the Fourth Amendment is not a protection against every unreasonable search and seizure; it only protects against those that the law deems unjustified (Harr et al., 2017). The reasonableness of a specific sort of search within the eyes of the law is evaluated by weighing two significant interests (Harr et al., 2017). On one side of the spectrum is the violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of a person. On the other end of the spectrum are valid government concerns such as public health and safety. Thus, it would be logical to assume that all communication channels should be part of a citizen’s private space, inspected solely if the appropriate governance structures approve a one-time search.
The main reason for the stated position is how modern society is structured. In particular, the existence of the Internet has played a significant role not only in human development but also in the way one’s activities, interests, and plans are monitored. It follows that if the authorities are empowered to monitor citizens virtually at all times, a dystopian society may develop. In particular, over time, freedom of speech and natural human rights may cease to exist. The attempt to create an exception for any possible means of communication creates a chain of negative tendencies leading to an authoritarian outcome.
Opponents of this position argue that the right to free speech can prevent many crimes, including terrorist attacks, from occurring. Such an approach is fundamentally problematic because the ratio of potential perpetrators to ordinary citizens is disproportionate. Specifically, dealing with a dangerous minority by imposing severe restrictions on the entire population is not an adequate solution. As a result, the assumptions described constitute a superficial overview of the situation without delving into possible developments.
In conclusion, both physical and virtual communication channels should be kept free of government oversight until relevant court cases are initiated. The specific reasons for this decision were described as the risk of developing an authoritarian regime. Moreover, the opposite position, which has a significant flow, was presented. Such analyses and studies are an essential element of contemporary discourse since the involvement of public influence is a crucial aspect in the preservation of natural human rights.
Reference
Harr, S. J., Hess, K. M., Orthmann, C. H., & Kingsbury, J. (2017). Constitutional law and the criminal justice system (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.