The following is my personal opinion on the controversial WikiLeaks situation. Considering that its been 7 years since actions have been taken against WikiLeaks, I will be covering my thoughts on whether or not they are justified.
Introduction
The following case study highlights actions taken by and against WikiLeaks since September 2011. More specifically, the case study covers the major releases of documents that target the U.S. Government, Syrian Government and discussed the role of the First Amendment protecting the right to release these documents. In September 2011 WikiLeaks released more than 250,000 secret U.S. cables on their website. The case study also covers Julian Assange, the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks and his ongoing rift with the United States Government. He was arrested in London in 2010 for rape charges but eventually made it to an asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London where he continued to bother the U.S. government. Lastly, this case study raises the question whether WikiLeaks is a hero for releasing the information they receive or a threat to our national security.
First Amendment
Against popular belief, the first amendment does and should protect WikiLeaks from prosecution. As a refresher, the First Amendment reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Fortunately for WikiLeaks, it is characterized as a form of press or news outlet. Thus, WikiLeaks is merely presenting the information given to them to the larger public. As the first Amendment reads, there should not exist a ruling that prohibits Wikileaks from exercising freedom of speech in its releases. However, if WikiLeaks was involved in the act of hacking servers and obtaining the information in which it release it can be rightfully prosecuted by the United States Government.
Are They Justified?
For starters, the only difference between WikiLeaks releasing Syrian information vs. United States Information is the countries that are affected. To properly answer whether WikiLeaks is justified in releasing Syrian Government information vs U.S. Government information, one would have to analyze whether it is justified to release any information at all. This is a very controversial topic and involves several different arguments. One major argument surrounds freedom of speech. As indicated above, WikiLeaks is serving the duties of the press and releasing information to the public as it is received. In a way, it can be argued that WikiLeaks embodies what true journalists and reporters should be doing today. WikiLeaks aims to give the the public full transparency into the thoughts of the governments running them. If we think of it from this perspective, then WikiLeaks is justified to release information about whoever’s government as it deems fit.
With the power of releasing sensitive information to the public comes many potential issues. The biggest issue which we have encountered already is bias and the attempt to influence people. This issue was in full swing during the 2016 Presidential Election, as it is widely believed that hacks to Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton’s email account caused her to lose the election. I firmly believe that releasing information to influence the outcome of an election or to influence people in any way is not justified. While the release of Hillary’s emails did provide more transparency to the candidate, the other candidate, Donald Trump, was not targeted in the same manner. This provided an unfavorable skew to the public image of one candidate because of information that had the right to remain private.
Should Limits Be In Place?
Continuing with assertion above, limits should be in place when it comes to the release of information that clearly compromises someone’s privacy. What many people do not understand is that while they are excited to read information that is classified, as it fulfills their short term political interests, the methods that were took to obtain that information is a violation of privacy rights that can cause much long term damage. Thus, one can claim that Assange is a hero for releasing information to the public to promote transparency, but one can also argue that he is also promoting violation of our privacy. If we begin to accept this violation of privacy, then the leaks will be threat to everyone. I believe Marco Rubio summed it up best when he says “Further, I want to warn my fellow Republicans who may want to capitalize politically on these leaks: Today it is the Democrats. Tomorrow it could be us”. He clearly understands that the leaks aid in increasing transparency that can help people make decisions that can ultimately benefit him. However, at the same time, he understands the threat that the leaks present to all of us.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I believe that WikiLeaks is justified in releasing information to the public to promote transparency as that right is protected by the First Amendment. However, I believe that WikiLeaks should start analyzing the methods in which the information was gathered and whether it will like to promote those actions. While the information may be valuable, it needs to access the message it is trying to get across. Limits should be in place at the reporting end to help protect the privacy of individuals. There should be something done against destroying someone’s privacy for journalism sake. Ultimately, questions it should ask itself are:
- Was this information obtain in a lawful manner?
- Is this information meant to skew a particular audience into making a certain decision?
- Will this information actually benefit the public?
While not all information is going to be obtained in a lawful manner, WikiLeaks must decided whether or not that information is helpful to the community.