DEFENDER(s) OF FREE-SPEECH?
Had some interesting debate with a deviant (well, I think it was a debate, I don't know what that person thinks) about Wikileak and freedom of speech so I'm gonna post a summary of what I think about this event and the questions I used to ask people about this issue.
FIRST OF ALL I will have to say that I totally agree in exposing the truth and kudos to Wikileak for acting as one of the channels for this matter.
BUT The questions I have about this matter are all about the intention and conduct used to acquire and expose the so called 'truth'. (First of all I think that the jailing of Mr. Asange is total BS, sex scandal charge while his website is being face-to-face with the US government? That's too convenient. That's clearly an attempt to cover up and shut down one channel for free and transparent information.)
The intention and conduct are like the means to achieve one's goal. I'm not so naive to totally believe in 'the end justifies the means' mantra and here are what I think. Wikileak should not be held responsible for the displaying of information it acquired but what about the 'leak' itself and the people who leaked the info? Do 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of information' labels automatically grant people who attempt to leak or steal government documents total immunity to laws? (I'm not talking about foul-play like the sex scandal thing) Should every person working for the governments start stealing and leaking every kind of information coming their way so we magically have a 'total' transparent government by dawn of the next day?
And some supporters of WL use cyber-attack against Mastercard, Visa and some banks for pulling their plugs off WL. I would love to know what is your stand point on this issue, I really love to know. I understand the motivation of the attack but how come people who fight for the rights to freedom of speech attack someone (or institutions which hold public interests such as banks) for making their business decision? (especially it's the kind of legal and constitutional decision and not the immoral decision like the funding of war or the decision to exploit the loophole of the system). It's like the rebels who fight against dictator regime using terrorizing techniques in order to gain the support (out of fear) of the population. Yes, Banks are tied to authorities, but people who use services of those banks shouldn't get caught in the crossfire. Just because someone are customers or clients of institutions which (following orders from authorities) tried to suppress free-speech 'does not' mean that they themselves are against free-speech and, in my opinion, their suffering shouldn't be seen as collateral or acceptable damages.
I like to quote Mr. Robert S. McNamara from his interview in "Fog of War" [LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?]
So how can these cyber-terrorism be seen as 'savior of the free-speech' if used against banks which back out from Wikileak but will be seen as 'real crime' when they decided to attack 'your money', 'your Facebook account' or 'your mom's pension account'?
I ASKED THESE QUESTIONS BECAUSE personally I know sometimes we need to go to a less noble path to make something work in a better way, it's just that I will keep in mind that we have to bear the responsibilities when we use wrong methods to achieve the right goals (and many times that wrong methods are the last resorts) otherwise we're no different than the authorities which did something totally wrong just because they were 'following orders' without second thought or re-examining whether those orders were legal or not (and even if they were legal, still have to look whether they were against the constitution or not).
Tell me what you think in the comment section