Vigilante Seekers Of Truth
My views on freedom of expression are simple. It's all free. Say what you want, print what you think, create the art you wish to produce. The reaction to your expression is equally free. Prepare yourself for the backlash if your expression crosses a line ...... anyone's imaginary line and sensitivity. At that point you're free to tell them to piss off. I have similar views on 'freedom of information' but feel there's a major difference between public and private information versus your expression as an individual.
I've been reading every article I come across on Wikileaks and Julian Assange. Slate, CNN and Foxnews are my primary news and commentary sites. I read them every day. I also click on MSN and Yahoo links to related stories. I feel the only way to get balanced news is multiple sources. Everyone seems to have an axe to grind ...... especially Julian Assange.
One of the interesting angles of this tale is how the media reports it, the words they use, adjectives and labels. I champion whistle blowers exposing lies, corruption and greed in the public or private sector if the purpose of the leak is to bring thieves to justice. Major media outlets recently stopped referring to him as a whistle blower for that very reason. They see a huge difference between what Wikileaks is doing and the work of Jeff Wigand , the guy who released tobacco industry secrets to 60 Minutes.
When a Wiki-leak exposed the payoff of millions of dollars in cash to Afghan government officials I thought the leak was justified, newsworthy. When a leak exposed the back biting and behind-closed-doors name calling of diplomats I thought it was petty and pointless. That behavior has been going on forever. Big deal. It's not news. I felt the same when Arab leaders were outed for secretly demanding the U.S. doing something drastic to stop Iran's Ahmadinejad because they view him as dangerous. No surprise there. Arab regimes, like our diplomatic corps, survive on double speak.
Newt Gingrich labeled Assange an "enemy combatant". I don't buy into Newt's demagoguery. Christopher Hitchens calls him an '"unscrupulous megalomaniac with a political agenda". I can buy into that angle.
I try to take an objective position on Assange because of my belief in total freedom of expression and information, but I have mixed feelings about the mission of Wiki-leaks. I believe Julian Assange could do a lot of good with this tool, but instead he chooses sides, grinds his axe, and uses his influence to attack nations, corporations and men he disagrees with. I suspect he has dirt on people he would never expose. Assange lacks the impartiality required for credibility.
Assanges main allies, a collection of truth seeking leftists and anarchists, rally behind the banner of free speech and the public's right-to-know. They did not however grant MasterCard, Visa and a Swiss bank the freedom to decide with whom they do business. When these companies cut Wikileaks access to credit their websites were hacked, disabled, and Wikileak defenders were quick to take credit for the espionage.
It's funny how alleged defenders of freedom are willing to deny rights to those they disagree with. Hypocrites is too nice a word for them. They also cyber attacked the Swedish prosecutors website for bringing charges against Assange. So much for due process.
On one hand I'm rooting for Wikileaks hoping they can find some version of moral high ground, but I'm very suspicious of the man and motives. His vigilante hacker supporters are doing far more damage than good with their cyber crimes
A reasonably good idea like Wikileaks is being destroyed in the hands of buffoons as corrupt as the people they choose to embarrass.. Assange and his defenders will bring themselves down. The world will return to the behind the scenes corruption, business as usual, because the so-called seekers of truth are no better than the crooks.
Pity.