1. I agree with Justice Douglas that putting restrictions on free speech is dangerous to our democracy. To enable citizens to openly think and have a say on how they want society and government to function, they need to feel safe when speaking out on issues affecting their communities. When people feel safe speaking out and expressing their freedom of speech, it deters people from abusing power which is essential in the long run. Freedom of speech also allows citizens and voters to hold their politicians accountable. Freedom of speech is also necessary for change and innovation in society, which benefits the country as a whole.
2. The right to privacy is not mentioned word for word in the Constitution. However, privacy is understood through several amendments. For example, the 4th Amendment provides that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” The point of this amendment is to limit government intrusions on citizens. Although it doesn’t limit all searches and seizures, it limits those deemed unreasonable.
3. The rights that Hamdan is entitled to is unclear in the Constitution. The crimes committed were on U.S. soil, therefore he must obey to the consequences stated by the Constitution. I don’t think he should be entitled to the same freedoms and liberties as a US citizen. Freedom of speech is only protected so far. Hate crimes and acts of terrorism obviously or any threats on American citizens should not be protected, therefore I believe Hamdan should be tried in civilian courts.