Has the Release of Wikileaks Documents Cost Lives - Essay Example

Prof. T English 112 02/21 Why Censorship is not the Best Option When it comes to Whistleblowers like Wikileaks and why Citizens should not have access to all Information In 2010, Wikileaks made headlines after publishing several sensitive documents about Iraq, Afghanistan, the United States and many countries around the world (BBC News). Wikileaks also promised to divulge important information about certain big companies in the United States and abroad. The documents leaked to the press by Wikileaks caused a lot of concerns among nations that many world leaders wanted to have the founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, arrested (Entous and Perez). While world leaders cried foul, many people around the world commended Wikileaks for informing the public regarding what governments and big corporations are doing. Many people believe that the public has the right to know what their leaders are doing and that Wikileaks must be allowed to continue providing the public with critical information without being censored (Lang). While some people see Wikileaks as a hero, others feel that the company has breached the bounds of decency and ethics for divulging damaging information without taking into considerations the consequences of its actions. Yet, despite the possible ethical breach on the part of Wikileaks, this does not mean that censorship of the press is the best solution to avert possible harm and prevent potentially embarrassing situations on the part of the government. There is no doubt that the right to information is very important but the question now is whether or not it is morally and politically correct for an organization like Wikileaks to spy on governments and big companies and divulge sensitive information to the public. In other words, to what extent should the public be kept informed about government transactions and when should the government be allowed to withhold information from its constituents. We have to understand that the public does not need to be a privy to all activities of the government and there are things that are better left unsaid to protect the people. Information is very powerful and it can make or unmake a company, a government, an organization or an individual. Since information is very powerful, there is a need to temper the sharing of information and use it only to promote the highest good (Thierer and Anderson). The right to be informed is very important so there is a need for people to be kept informed on the issues that affect them. In the case of Wikileaks, providing the general public with the right information is crucial so there is a need to scrutinize the kind of information that it gives to the general public. Note that certain types of information can cause a lot of damage and put the lives of people in danger. Potentially embarrassing leaks can lead to international tension and may lead to the breakdown of diplomatic ties of some nations. Allegations that the United States is selling nuclear arms to terrorists for instance are a very serious and it can create dangerous backlash. Publishing this kind of information without putting the information in the right context is very dangerous it can undermine the stability of certain nations. The idea that companies like Wikileaks can hack into the database of certain government offices and private companies is disturbing because any information that these companies generate can be used against the offices where the information came from. A clear example of this is what happened in Iraq when Wikileaks published sensitive Iraq war documents (BBC News). Note that Iraq had an inconclusive election in March of 2010 and the publication of the war documents added to the uneasiness in the area. According to Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, the war documents published by Wikileaks undermined the efforts of the Iraqis to form a strong government (BBC News). Although some political observers noted that the information published by Wikileaks did not seem to impress the majority of the people in Iraq (BBC News), there is really no way of saying how this information had influenced the way the world look at Iraq. Note that the war documents were published online and people from all over the world and see them so the sphere of influence created is so wide that it is difficult to clearly measure the impact of that these documents had on the general public. Since lives may be at stake if certain information is made public, should companies like Wikileaks be subjected to censorship? The idea that whistleblowers like Wikileaks should be silenced is rather disturbing and when we start to go after whistleblowers, we may stifle the truth and cause injustice to prosper. Censorship stifles the flow of information and it can curtail the freedom of the press so there is a need to hit a balance between what should be or should not be published (Thierer and Anderson). There are certain types of information that should be made known to the public even if they are shocking to the senses of humankind. For instance, war crimes that go unpunished should be made known to the public in order to pressure world leaders to act on these injustices. By publishing documents that pinpoint war criminals, world leaders may be persuaded to go after these criminals. Note that in certain parts of the world, powerful people, organizations and even governments commit criminal acts against innocent people without being brought to justice. In the same manner, publishing unethical practices of certain companies can save lives so there is a need to companies like Wikileaks that are brave enough to tell the ugly truth as it is. If organizations like Wikileaks are prohibited from blowing the whistle on these individuals and organizations, several lives can be in great danger. Information can be a double-edge sword and it can go either way. If we withhold critical information, people can die and if we irresponsibly divulge sensitive information people can also die. Given this situation, it is very important for companies like Wikileaks to have the right moral values and motivations. Merely publishing critical information just for the sake of giving information to the public should be avoided to minimize damage to property and the loss of lives. As it is, journalists and publishers both online and offline must observe proper conduct and must put the best interest of the public first before anything else. The right to be informed is not an absolute right, thus, journalists and publishers should use sound judgment to decide whether or not publishing sensitive information will bring the highest good to the public. There is a need to journalists and publishing companies to act responsibly and consider the consequences of their actions. Works Cited BBC News. “Wikileaks Iraq war documents: the key issues.” BBC News. 25 October 2010. 28 February 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11617892 Connolly, Katie. “Has release of Wikileaks documents cost lives?” BBC News, Washington. 1 December 2010. 27 February 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11882092 Entous, Adam and Evan Perez. “Prosecutors Eye WikiLeaks Charges”. The Wall Street Journal. 21 August 2010. 27 February 2011 http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704488404575441673460880204.html Lang, Olivia. “Welcome to a new age of whistle-blowing.” BBC News. 27 July 2010. 27 February 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10774473 Thierer, Adam and Brian Anderson. A Manifesto for Media Freedom. New York: Encounter Books, 2008 Read More