Which nation would most likely be associated with restrictions on personal liberties like freedom of speech freedom of religion and freedom of the press?

Answer 1

Most countries restrict one or more of these freedoms (and others enumerated in our Bill of Rights). A few that place severe restrictions on all three include North Korea, China, Iran, and Cuba.

While that's an interesting fact, I might suggest considering a closely related question: Which nation would most likely be in danger of losing personal liberties like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press?

Most Americans take these freedoms for granted, but both political parties are guilty of chipping away at them at least since the 1990s - when I first took notice of it. But "chipping" became the occasional "hammering" with the Patriot Act and each subsequent renewal of it; and now the cracks are plainly visible because of the federal pounding.

On May 9, 2013, the Departments of Justice and Education issued a joint letter to the University of Montana describing a plan to combat the alarmingly frequent sexual harassment and sexual assaults taking place there. (The University had requested a DOJ investigation of one case, which led to the discovery of many others.) The letter very confidently stated the agencies had formed guidelines for handing such incidents; they were so pleased to have crafted "reforms" certain to "protect" victims and prevent many future complaints that they were in the process of using it as a "blueprint" for a nationwide policy. It would apply to any institution of higher learning receiving any form of federal funding - in other words, almost every single community college, accredited vocational school, traditional college, and university in the country. And what was it that had them beaming with excitement?

Simple: the definition of "sexual harassment" would be widened to include any form of "unwelcome speech." From now on, every complaint of harassment under this definition would require an "immediate," "strict" response against the offending student, without benefit of a hearing, up to and including revoking that student's federal loans or sports scholarships. If the university doesn't do this quickly enough to satisfy the Executive Cabinet, the Department of Education could authorize penalties against the university including the loss of Federal research grants, Pell grants, etc.

Imagine the effect this could have on students for having said or laughed at something that someone deemed "unwelcome," or having associated with someone who did. For most students, the loss of federal loans would necessitate dropping out of school and giving up every opportunity that would have been open to them with a degree. For the rest of their lives.

Plus, the students would've had no hearing to determine guilt or innocence, no opportunity to confront the accuser or call witnesses on their behalf, and no recourse to appeal the ruling. That's no minor infringement of the 1st Amendment Rights to free speech, free association, and petition of the government for the redress of grievances. And it would deny them due process*, the compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor**, and the right to confront the accusing witness**: all gross violations of the *5th and **6th Amendments, respectively. If ever there were cases of cruel and unusual punishment, these would qualify - thus violating the 8th Amendment.

When news of this impending "blueprint" got out, the outcry from conservatives and moderates caused the two Departments to scrap the plan.

Beginning in 2005, there's also been a push by Congressional Democrats to reinstate the FCC's Fairness Doctrine. This policy would, they say, ensure that issues are presented from "diverse viewpoints" on all radio stations. President Clinton's remarks in February 2009 make it clear that the intent is to dull the impact of talk radio, which is dominated by libertarians and conservatives. The controversy continues as of 2014, when news got out regarding a planned "pilot study" ready to implement in South Carolina. The full program would've put the content and management of radio news coverage under a federal microscope every three years. But when conservatives and libertarians again raised an outcry (reportedly, mainstream news outlets tended to support the program), the FCC scrapped the journalism aspect of the plan.

In this context, the Department of Justice's seizure of Associated Press telephone and e-mail records in April and May of 2012 take on an added significance. Reportedly, that violation of the freedom of the press was carried out in an effort to find the source of a story the AP had aired before the White House could announce it at a planned press briefing.

Look into the religious fallout of the Affordable Care Act to find cases of the federal government unapologetically trying to dictate the exercise of religion in small ways. Despite many efforts to present those raising religious concerns in a highly unflattering light, the issues are truly problematic.

There are many more cases of federal attempts to skirt others of the Bill of Rights as well as the 1st Amendment. Are they all just isolated incidents? Has their frequency really accelerated over the last decade? How much has it accelerated? Is it just the frequency, or are the plans more brazen and cavalier than before?

I hope readers will find these questions thought-provoking, personally relevant, and compelling rather than merely interesting in a passing-glance kind of way.