Over the past several weeks, we have experienced a very troubling political phenomenon. Following the release of several hundred thousand documents by WikiLeaks detailing the secret opinions of diplomats, our mainstream press--on whom we depend to be the first line of defense against encroachments against our liberty by the government--as well as the Tea Party--who like to paint themselves as the guardians of freedom even as they trample it beneath their steel-toed boots--have called for the dissolution of the organization and even the arrest of its head, Julian Assange.
To my knowledge, these documents have not revealed anything truly ground-breaking or severe, nor anything we did not already know, but the attack WikiLeaks faces for performing such a valuable service is terrifying and telling.
The grand hypocrisy, furthermore, is telling. America enjoys lambasting the Great Firewalls of China and Australia, but when push comes to shove, it is weak and gelatinous. The Swedish government, moreover, has pursued a charge of rape because of how uncomfortable WikiLeaks makes it in order to get the website shut down and Mr Assange out of trouble.
A government's primary interest may be to preserve itself, but we expect that. What we do not expect is that a public which prides itself upon its freedoms to fold so easily upon the will of its government. Alexis de Tocqueville observed in his magnum opus, "I know of no country where there is generally less independence of thought and real freedom of debate than in America"1.
What right, then, do we have to call ourselves free and democratic if we tolerate the annihilation of a tremendous service to democracy? We fail to realize that were something to happen; were our government or any other to further pursue this line of fearmongering and thought control, that this kind of service may spark the salvation of a nation from the jaws of totalitarianism2.
Furthermore, I must express my profound disappointment in the Obama administration over this issue. Where Obama has pledged a more transparent government, the reaction of his administration to this issue is backtracking at its most intolerable.
But far more effective than Hillary Clinton's investigation into the leak, or any other government attempt to stifle dissent is the invertebrate nature of many of our corporations that fold at the slightest threat by the lowest common denominator. As Viacom folded when RevolutionMuslim threatened the creators of South Park, so has Amazon--which hosted some of the documents released by WikiLeaks--folded after a mere phone call with Senator Joe Lieberman3.
Our democracy--and democracy itself worldwide--is threatened from all sides over this issue, from so-called democrats and authoritarians alike. The answer is not to be afraid, but to proudly exercise the First Amendment in the face of such adversity.
I do realize that certain information could cost lives, but the scope of such a category of information is actually quite limited. Names of secret agents, miltary unit locations, and nuclear power plant blueprints fall under this category. But also the existence of such a service and the release of other important information, such as regarding Abu Ghraib and other transgressions by a government against its laws and people far outweigh in my view the possibility of lives lost. In such instances, a few lives may be spared, but a whole nation subjugated.
1) Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America p. 297
2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/04/state-department-to-colum_n_792059.html
I HIGHLY recommend you read this article, and pay special attention to the notification given to Colombia University students.
3) http://www.salon.com/technology/dan_gillmor/2010/12/03/the_net_s_soft_underbelly
No comments:
Post a Comment