WikiLeaks is a non-profit organization led by Julian Assange, an Australian Internet Activist. The organization is responsible for releasing leaks and classified material from anonymous sources. WikiLeaks is a company that encourages transparency and free will in the United States Government.
Clarity may get ugly at times because it reveals the truths on governance and issues like corruption, fraud, and mismanagement of funds. Their documents are based on stories of historical, ethical and political significance (Karhula, 2011). The team consists of technologists from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia, South Africa, Chinese dissidents, mathematicians, and dissidents. I believe that WikiLeaks should not be allowed to exist even though it advocates for a free system.
WikiLeaks documents mostly address the US government’s alleged misbehavior and some of the information is often crucial, and an example is in July 2010 when WikiLeaks released the Afghan War Diary. This was a collection of more than 76,900 documents that had not been opened to the public. From these documents, it was discovered that there were deaths of innocent civilians that had been hidden from the public.
127 our experts are availableright now
Moreover, in October 2010, a collection of almost 400,000 documents the Iraq war Logs were released through support from commercial media platforms. Here, the tremendous military secrets in history were leaked. The reports had alleged evidence of torment and mistreatments and deaths of more than 109,000 and 66,801 civilians between 2004 & 2009 (Karhula, 2017). The United States officials did not share this information with its citizens; therefore, when WikiLeaks provide the information to the ordinary person, it comes out as a lack of transparency by the government. The Iraq War Logs release was spoken against by the US and the UK government claiming it put lives at risk since it released names of individuals who supported the war. Green Greenwald, a lawyer, and civil rights activist, shared his sentiments that WikiLeaks is the only organization that has managed to expose the misuse of power and corruption issues, which is a unique aspect.
WikiLeaks released information on hidden war crimes and prisoner abuse like in the March 2007 release of the Military Operating Manual for Guantanamo Prison Camp. There were prisoner mistreatment and favors of some prisoners. Furthermore, in collaboration with the New York Times, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, El Pais, and Le Monde published documents (Diplomatic cables) that had been leaked. The cables came from Spirent, the Secret Internet Network. This situation caused dramatic reactions from different countries and even civil organizations. However, no charges were filed for the leaks proving that the documents had accurate information. WikiLeaks became a target of blocks, and a denial of service was made against the company. The founder, Assange, was also charged with a rape case by the government of Ecuador (Karhula, 2017).
WikiLeaks is publicly known for supporting standing up for human rights and freedoms. WikiLeaks should be allowed to exist, or the freedom of speech and expression so much cherished by the Americans would prove to be unaccepted. Censorship of information posted should be unlawful since there is no false claim that has been proven to be made by WikiLeaks. However, the freedom of speech could cause a great deal of havoc, and some areas require censorship such as discrimination and racism and other sites promoting hatred banned. WikiLeaks, in its website, states that their driving force in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Karhula, 2011). This defines Human Rights of expression and transfer of information. They also discuss that the ‘leaking’ is necessary to counter individual and corporate corruption as well as illegal transactions.
The treatment given to WikiLeaks by the governments and even civil rights organizations provides an aspect of the attitude towards whistleblowers in the country. Citizens of every country have the right to know what takes place, and the communication should be a free system, making no civilian afraid to express their sentiments. The nature of leaders’ intent and integrity is also very highly questionable because they do not release relevant information to the public. Nevertheless, some of this information may be confidential but not all of it. The citizens have the right to know how the country is being run and activities done on their backs would draw suspicions and lessen their integrity. What is the US Military’s intention when it mistreats prisoners? Do they believe that other citizens would not find out? Why are details about victims of war kept from other civilians yet it is their right?
The US government certainly has many questions to answer to its citizens, and it has not made a move to do so. It is therefore justified for WikiLeaks to provide citizens with insight. The government exercises over the classification of information which creates gaps in their governance. Whistleblowers are advocates of change, and the reaction is often negative or positive, mostly being negative (Brevini, 2017). The system should be democratic and open to avoid violent situations. Human rights can be protected in non-violent ways. Every country has its way of internet control.
As much as WikiLeaks advocates for the rights of freedom and expression, there are implications of the information they provide. The arguments against them are numerous, and one is that it violates the confidential space for diplomatic conversations. It is imperative that every country would love to maintain a level of diplomacy with its documents, history, political information, economic and even ethical. Therefore, by putting the confidential information that the country prefers to be secret is a violation. To add onto that, WikiLeaks share and publish classified documents which are documents that are sensitive and restricted by regulations and laws to specific people. The access is limited, and the handling of these documents require formal clearance. Therefore, the fact that WikiLeaks shares this information to all the citizens makes the country lose its independence and diplomacy. Governments to seem extent require to operate confidentially since not all data concerns the citizens. WikiLeaks gives some sensitive information, and an example is the release of names in the Iraq War Logs which could expose the people who supported the war to the danger of assassination and even other dangers (Karhula, 2018). Release of an individual’s identities leads to further violence such that exposing too much data may lead to more misunderstanding. Freedom must have its limit, and it is crucial to avoid misusing the freedom of speech and expression.
Some secrecy in a government is desirable and tactical since it protects it against attacks from other countries using their weaknesses and secrets shared. Their move also violates property rights and personal/government privacy and WikiLeaks defy this through unauthorized access of the data (Cuillier, 2017).
However, the move by WikiLeaks does not fully support freedom in the long run. It does not work for the positive but may cause a negative shift in government policies regarding internet freedom. The governments would feel attacked and also decide to respond in the same way instead of the expected outcome of giving free space of speech and advancing the transparency in public documents. The confusion of impact in that the government introduces stricter rules and internet censorship (Hilmersson, 2018).
The Cable leaks of the United States documents led to three senators introducing a bill that would stop making the illegal publication of names. The Securing Human Intelligence Lawful Dissemination Act (SHIELD), (Karhula, 2018). There is also a wiretapping bill that allows the interception of the government into online communication. The law would allow the government to read the messages and content shared on social media and other online platforms to protect itself from losing its autonomy. Any citizen who would address any ‘classified’ information in the platforms would be arrested on the grounds of the ‘National Security’ threat (Mire et al., 2016). The exposure of a country’s secrets threatens a country’s independence and threatens the security making it more viable to attacks. WikiLeaks does not lead to transparency that supports civil society, instead creates feelings of doubt and hatred for the government. According to a journalist Claire Belinski, journalists of all people should understand that governments at times protect their sources of information (Karhula, 2018). This is because in their line of jobs if the people they spoke to did not believe they could keep their information private, they would never open up to them again.
In my opinion, WikiLeaks is not very beneficial to ordinary citizens because many restrictions have been made by governments to protect internet security. The average person, as a result of the WikiLeaks, may have their conversations monitored by the government, less freedom of speech and expression and may suffer from the lack of integrity in the government operations. As much as the average citizen could get information on important issues like corruption of the leaders, they may be at the losing end.
The mainstream media has focused on whether WikiLeaks should be prosecuted with going against the First Amendment and punished with the Espionage Act for Treason. The alternative news, on the other hand, states that under the First Amendment, WikiLeaks has the right to illuminate the civilians and act as a whistleblower. The First Amendment does not support a prosecution for a journalist who presents truthful information that benefits the public. It is important to note that the US Supreme court had ruled that the freedom of speech and press was so indispensable to a free government. The case of WikiLeaks nevertheless has more aspects of being considered like putting the country at risk of losing the independence of its information and compromising the national security, WikiLeaks may also be protected under the First Amendment because they established that the intended use of the documents was to share and distribute to the public hence protected through the court of Appeal second circuit (Hilmersson, 2017). The United States was considering charging Assange with Espionage, yet this act only applied when the person was making war against the US or comforting the enemies. WikiLeaks and Assange obtained the documents from corporate media and did not steal it; therefore, it would be unfair to prosecute Assange to treason.
American citizens are primarily involved in the censorship of information by the government because they show a lack of interest in the details about legal and ethical issues. The restriction is not as the government choosing what to take out and what information to retain on those sites but also requires the citizens to express their desire to know what is taking place. Therefore, the American citizens would live in denial of what is going through, not realizing that it all depends on their ability, and it is their responsibility to speak out. Shortly the government may need to look into questions about the culture of disclosure which has now been trodden on, and whistleblowers may feel the need to keep it on the low. The government should address the opportunities, challenges of the disclosure process and even provide better solutions for journalists. It should also ask itself whether the leaks are as a result of renewed democratic accountability of the citizens and make sure it addresses the social-political and economic conditions that may lead to the disclosure (Brevini, 2017).
In conclusion, WikiLeaks started as a very vital tool for informing the public about violations of human rights and social injustices like corruption and misuse of power. Nonetheless, it ended up releasing even classified information about the United States government and the military, which violated the country’s independence and brought up many other issues. The reputation of WikiLeaks became tarnished by the US and other governments, civil organizations and citizens, making it needless to keep existing. I believe that WikiLeaks is no longer beneficial to the government and its citizens because many regulations have been put up by the government to censor the data. Is it censorship or under-reporting? Is it disclosure or whistle-blowing? (Brevini, 2017) These are essential questions that every media, whether mainstream or alternative have to answer before sharing any information to be on the right side of the law. Generally, WikiLeaks should not be allowed to exist any longer due to the harm caused, but the government ought not to depend on censorship as it’s only, ensures against internet crimes. They do not improve the quality of life of ordinary individuals because of the restrictions it has implicated in online communication.
References
- Karhula, P. (2011). What is the effect of WikiLeaks for Freedom of Information? FAIFE Spotlight [online], 19.
- Taylor, C. A. (Ed.). (2017). The Ethics of WikiLeaks. Greenhaven Publishing LLC.
- Hilmersson, A. (2018). WikiLeaks and the Censorship of News Media in the US. Metamorphosis.
- Cuillier, D. (2017). Government information and leaks. In Social Media and the Law (pp. 159-173). Routledge.
- Mire, I., Pjesivac, I., & Luther, C. A. (2016). Governmental control of the Internet and WikiLeaks: How does the press in four countries discuss freedom of expression? International Communication Gazette, 78(5), 385-410.
- Brevini, B. (2017). WikiLeaks: Between disclosure and whistle‐blowing in digital times. Sociology Compass, 11(3), e12457.
