Trastornos del Desarrollo Motor:

Certainly one may say, “Freedom to speak or write can be taken from us by a superior power, but never the freedom to think!” However, how much, and how correctly, would we think if we did not think, as it were, in common with others, with whom we mutually communicate (Kant, 1948). What we need to understand, then, is that our thoughts are not the product of purely solitary activity on our parts. True, thinking is something we do in our minds, but our thoughts are products of our socialisation and the information we receive from others. Thus, the breadth and depth of our thoughts are closely connected to the breadth and depth of ideas, opinions, and concepts we are exposed to socially. The more free public expression of ideas is, the more freedom we will have in our thinking; the more regulated public expression is, the more narrow our thinking will end up. (Cline, 2014, p. 2) The Internet has been a great contributor to the freedom of interaction that in itself attracts the interest of mass surveillance.

Digital networks have become social places, where people discuss issues, and find others who share unusual interests, argue, form groups, and freely express

themselves. Ray Oldenburg has referred to the networks as a new sort of “Third Place where people gather for conviviality, apart from home and work” (first and second Places) (Lynch M. , 2014). The lack of face–to–face contact has a levelling effect for those who participate. Race, class, gender and physical appearance are hidden, allowing interaction that is relatively free from all the subtle biases that usually accompany more direct human relations. In contrast, this virtual anonymity allows interaction without any commitment; the sense of shared responsibility that people must have in a real community does not necessarily exist on the internet.

51

Habermas perceives the human species unique communicative competence as general rationalisation, humanisation, and democratisation of society. He argued the coming of the capitalist stage of development marked the appearance of ‘The Public Sphere’ (Habermas, 1989). This sphere was an area in which individuals exchanged views and knowledge outside of the control by the state. Habermas argued that the essential characteristic of the public sphere was its critical nature (Habermas, 1989, p. 14). In his opinion, the activist public sphere was needed for debates on matters of public importance and as well as the mechanism for that discussion to affect the decision-making process.

Habermas moves Kant’s categorical imperative beyond its original reflection by demanding that we emphatically take into consideration the viewpoints of all who would be affected by the adoption of a particular moral action or normative claim. Equally, Rawls Veil of Ignorance demands that we participate in a discourse where all are fully aware of the other’s perspectives.

However cultures and individuals may vary from one another regarding religious convictions, traditions, and sentiments, reason stands as a universally shared

capacity of humanity. Reason is characterised first of all by an autonomy or freedom. It is a freedom that Locke and Kant believe is capable of giving itself its universal laws and norms in the moral and political domains. However true freedom requires that others respect these choices by not attempting to override them and make use for their purposes.

This norm of respect then issues in the political demand for democracy: only democracies, as resting on the consent of the governed, thereby respect and preserve the fundamental humanity of its citizens. A related condition is an equality that was taken to mean that all participants have an equal voice in the discussion regarding proposed norms and procedures. In particular, a consensus emerges here as a requirement ---non-coercive agreement of all who are affected by a proposed norm or procedure. Thus, the need for the freedom to speak or write is essential to support democracy.

52

Finally, Habermas acknowledges that these procedural rules enabling

communication must be complemented by a sense of solidarity among participants. Such solidarity involves concern for the wellbeing of both one’s fellow human beings and of the community as a whole.

As Habermas put it

Under the pragmatic presuppositions of an inclusive and non-coercive rational discourse among free and equal participants, everyone is required to take perspective of everyone else, and thus project herself into the understandings of self and world of all others; from this interlocking of perspectives there emerges an ideally extended we –perspective from which all can test in common whether they wish to make a controversial norm basis of their shared practice; and this should include mutual criticism of the appropriateness of the languages in terms of which situations and needs are interpreted. In the course of successfully taken abstractions, the core of generalizable interests can then emerge step by step (Habermas, 1989, p. 267)

The Governments effective monitoring of all these interchanges in the Public Sphere /Third Place removes the sense of freedom of speech and liberty for many. It also potentially weakens the solidarity of communities as a whole.

The fact that we are under surveillance as we walk the streets visit public places and use public transport strengthens the argument that there is no longer a place where we have our Privacy. It is far more difficult find places to relax and be free in our conversation and our behaviour without having to worry about other people engaging in acts of surveillance.