Slashdot Mirror
US To Host World Press Freedom Day
rekrowyalp writes "From the press release: 'The United States is pleased to announce that it will host UNESCO's World Press Freedom Day event in 2011. The United States places technology and innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals' right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information.' Oh the irony."
Of course not.
The problem is, at what point do you draw the line between completely free journalism, and responsible journalism?
In the case of wikileaks, names of secret operatives were taken release - putting plenty people in a lot of immediate danger. Well over 99% of what they put out is good and important, but redacting a few names wouldn't have hidden the corruption (or at least, less than honest tactics) of the powers that be, without putting people at risk.
At this point it could even be considered moving from irresponsible journalism to actual politicking under the guise of journalism.
Yeah, the US overreacted, plenty of it's politicians *REALLY* overreacted, but Assange could have gotten the point across without putting lives in danger like he did.
Wikileaks: "Which of these documents that you've market "secret" is okay to tell everyone?"
Government: "What the fu*K? None of them - that's why we marked them secret."
Wikileaks: "Well, if you won't decide, we will! And therefore, we release all of it!"
Do you see how silly that is?
You're blaming INTERPOL? Really? Swedish police issued an arrest warrant, and forwarded it on to INTERPOL. Should INTERPOL ignore warrants they don't like? Or I guess what you're really saying is INTERPOL should ignore warrants you don't like.
Your post is great, and generally true. The only problem is the first sentence: "No, it's not silly at all." The problem with that sentence is it seems to be in response to my question. If that is the case, then either you didn't bother to back up that assertion, or you feel the rest of your post DID back up that assertion, which it does not. It says nothing about whether or not it's silly to assume that a government agency, which marked these documents as secret, will say "Oh, we didn't mean those to be secret - you can show these things, but, if you don't mind, not those." That is absurd. Your post, on the other hand, gives good reasons for posting information ANYWAY, once it's been looked over, when that information is decided to be something that shouldn't be secret, by the reader of that information. That has nothing to do with the question/response that I laid out.