Violation Of The Constitution In George Orwell's 1984

The Constitution is a written charter made to protect the rights of the people of the United States, as well as to limit the powers of government in order to prevent a tyrannical or totalitarian society. Now, imagine a life without such an important document. Having applied this idea into George Orwell’s novel called 1984, this book discusses possibilities that may happen in a society without the Constitution. In this novel, a seemingly endless list of human rights are violated; specifically, the right to freedom of expression and for people to feel secure in their persons are absent in the novel. In reality, these rights are guarded by the Constitution, and this essay will go in depth on how well-protected these rights are in the United

In the beginning of the story, Winston Smith, the main character, invents the action “doublespeak” in order to survive and act as if he is a supporter of “Big Brother,” the tyrant in the novel. In the book, the word doublespeak is implied, and it is saying one thing while meaning the opposite. Winston believed that if he was to keep his opposition towards Big Brother a secret, then he must continue to act as if he was still a supporter. Also, in the beginning, Winston willingly participated in an event called “The Hate Week.” This event was to promote Big Brother’s image and slander Goldstein, a figure that has been claimed as the leader of a party that tried to overthrow Big Brother. He was able to keep his hatred by transferring it to the “dark-haired girl,” a woman he seemed to simultaneously hate and

The right to freedom of expression can be found in the First Amendment, stating that the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech… press… [and] people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (The Constitution). As for the right to feel secure, that is protected in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. In the Fourth Amendment, it specifically declares 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 Constitution). At the same time, these rights are continually being interpreted by the judiciary branch in terms of how far these amendments can protect a person. For example, in regards of the first amendment, it does not protect a person against libel, meaning, “defamation of a person’s character or reputation” (Turner et al 66). The idea of equally protecting people’s rights is important, and therefore, even if an individual expresses a negative outlook towards another individual without actually posing a threat, then there should be no harm in doing so. The Constitution does not favor the good from the bad,