@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:
You just have more trust in your government than I do, Finn. Good for you!
I don't know if that's the best way to describe our difference.
I do have a lot of faith in the basic decency of individuals, and governments (as well as corporations for that matter) are nothing more than a collection of individuals.
I have less faith in the competence of my government. Whether or not the desire is there, I don't think it is capable of the diabolical conspiracies of which it is accused.
I completely disagree with your assertion that every citizen has a right to disclose secrets the government fails to keep secure.
You seem to think the government and the people are two opposing sides in a game or contest.
While I'm not naive enough to assume that all governmental secrets are kept to protect the interests and security of the citizenry, I do assume that many are. I suppose I have the right to disclose a secret if it negatively impacts my interests and security
alone, but I don't have a right to do so if the impact is shared by my fellow citizens.
Of course the original source of classified information must be held accountable whenever a secret is divulged, and I will take it a step further and argue that if the original source was able to disclose the documents because of institutional negligence, then his or her superiors or those in charge of security should be held accountable as well.
Because you are not the original source, you should not be excused for whatever consequences flow from the disclosure of the secrets. An example that I hope I've stripped free of ambiguity might be a reporter publishing troop movements during a war. If the enemy uses that information to mount an ambush that would not otherwise have been possible and soldiers are killed, the reporter bears responsibility for those deaths. He should have known releasing the information was perilous and that he didn't have to, to avoid a significantly greater catastrophe.
A free society may decide that it is better, in the long haul, to run the risk that a journalist's publishing secrets will occasionally have dire consequences than it is to hold the reporter personally responsible for those consequences. The motivation for such a decision being that any fear of retribution might result in a total refusal of reporters to publish secrets...even those the disclosure of which serve the country.
But even though we are practically there already, it would disappoint me tremendously to learn that there aren't journalists who are willing to suffer consequences for doing serving their profession and their country. No other group of professionals, save perhaps politicians and lawyers are provided this excessive protection, and none of them consistently fail to meet their duty for fear of possible consequences.
Very few people in general, and almost none who favor this extent of journalistic protection, would afford the same to a policeman, and yet the same basic argument can be made.
We need police who will use their guns and sometimes kill people. If we don't provide them with near blanket immunity from prosecution for using their weapons in the course of their duty, they may all refuse to ever use them --- even when we need them to.
The truth is neither good nor bad, and it is certainly not of such value that it outweighs all other considerations.
Are we saying that journalists are incapable of making difficult decisions? That if left to their own devices they will always let fear of consequences overrule their professional integrity?
But even if we accept journalistic immunity, a strong case can be made that Julian Assange is not a journalist. He is a conduit, a middleman, and if he refuses to screen the information he passes along for data that may result in essentially innocent individuals being harmed, he certainly doesn't deserve the protection afforded journalists, who at least claim they will take such a step.
