People a good secret. They jump at the chance to receive confidential information--even more so when the content are controversial. It's why "insiders" and big news breaking journalists get paid the big bucks.
But what if revealing secretive information poses a threat to national security? Should it be published regardless? And what if revealing secretive information is said to be a threat to national security, just to hide an ugly truth from the people?
In 1971 Daniel Ellsberg, an insider with knowledge of U.S. affairs and in the recent Vietnam war, leaked secret documents to the New York Time--later to be known as "the Pentagon Papers." Ellsberg, who became opposed to the U.S.'s involvement in Vietnam, leaked papers revealing controversial military tactics, as well as Washington's decision to give military aid to France. He later faced up to 115 years in prison for treason, only to have charged dropped after it was discovered that the government had been illegally tapping his conversations.
While Ellsberg managed to wriggle off the hook of governmental wrath, an infamous present day leaker faces major charges for exposing top secret documents. In June 2013, former NSA contractor Edward Snowden disclosed information of the NSA surveillance tactics to The Guardian newspaper. The leak reignited controversy in the debate that goes all the way back to the famous John Peter Zenger trial in 1734. Should journalists have free reign to publish any information they see as truth, or do possible national security threats trump freedom of press rights?
When lives are at stake, lines should be drawn. Both the leaker and the one publishing should refrain from putting out any information that could possibly harm U.S. citizens. But where information expose governmental abuse, such as the NSA collecting phone calls and emails of ordinary U.S. citizens, that information deserves to be published, no matter how embarrassing it may be for the government.
In today's age of hackers and leakers, the government can't risk hiding illegal agencies and abuses. If they would be embarrassed by making their actions public, it's a good indication they should not be doing what they're doing. They can admit to and disband their abusive behavior, or wait long enough for a leaker to do it himself. Either way, the people will know.
Sierra here from class! Great work -- It's such a controversial topic, so I've enjoyed getting to see people's opinions on their blogs this week. I'm so grateful for the freedom of the press, but I agree with you that it needs to be limited when lives are on the line. Also, I loved your whole last paragraph--perfect way to end the post!
ReplyDelete