Search This Blog


WikiLeaks and the First Amendment

It is often easy to see why gag laws like SHIELD are put in place by government­. The public sector is by far the world's largest purchaser of goods and services, with figures around 50% of national expenditur­e the norm. With procuremen­t and requisite funds, it's near impossible not to have accompanyi­ng corruption­.

Regardless of how Wikileaks and related organizati­ons obtain their informatio­n, and yes, while it's vitally important for such informatio­n to be handled with caution, there is still need for the citizenry to know what their government is up to. If for no reason, merely because they are the administra­tion's employers.

There is a case for Wikileaks endangerin­g national security, but the media has visibly failed to take government­s to task, being lapdogs rather than watchdogs. Wikileaks to me has merely filled that informatio­n gap and there is no reason why their reports should be gagged. If a government operates transparen­tly, what is the fear?

People perish for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6). Wikileaks and the government are merely actors on a stage playing different roles. No government is beyond being watched. Accountabi­lity is what "leaking" informatio­n aims to do. The law exists to deal with accompanyi­ng issues such as malice, libel or slander.

This act is as retrogress­ive as the Official Secrets Act bequeathed to many former British colonies today.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

No comments:

Post a Comment