The Debate About Information Freedom

Edward Snowden. This is a name that will be in the history books for ages. He will be branded a traitor or a whistleblower depending on where you look. Many Americans feel that Edward Snowden is a traitor who sold the United States’ secrets aiming to harm the nation. Others believe that he was simply a citizen of the United States who exercised his right to expose the government for their unconstitutional actions. It is important to not only know the two sides to the argument of friend or foe, but to also know the facts as well. My goal in this paper is to present the facts without bias and to adequately portray the two sides of the argument.

Edward Snowden’s disclosures about the National Intelligence Agency surveillance extension is some of the most comprehensive news in recent history. It has incited a ferocious debate over national security and information privacy. As the U.S government deliberates various reform proposals, arguments continue on whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor (Simcox, 2015).

Several years after the end of the American Revolution the United States Constitution was being drafted by some of the nations most important historical figures. Politicians such as Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, and George Washington were just three of the thirty-nine who eventually signed the Constitution on September 17, 1787 (“United States Constitution,” 2015, “1787 Drafting,” para. 7). With the birth of the constitution, came the fear that our newly created nation might slip back under control of a monarchy once again. Therefore, on June 8, 1789, in order to combat such a situation, a group of anti-federalists headed by James Madison proposed a series of thirty-nine amendments to be added to the Constitution. These amendments were designed to guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government’s power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public (“United States Bill of Rights,” 2015, “Introduction,” para. 1). The first ten of the new amendments, arguably the most important of the thirty-nine, were thus labeled the Bill of Rights. Amendments in the Bill of Rights protect freedoms such as the right to bear arms, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, right to due process, right to trail by jury, protection from quartering troops, and finally the First Amendment, the right to freedom of speech, press, religion, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government (“United States

The following piece is to analyse the implied freedom of political communication, and in doing this an understanding of both the principle and why the courts are so hesitant to apply the principle will be developed. In its essence the implied freedom to political communication is the freedom given to the public for freedom of speech of a political nature. Evidence of where this freedom was not given could be seen during the chairman Mao rule in china, where the Chinese believed that the chairman was essentially God and speaking bad of him would result in biblical destruction of life, and as so currently in north Korea under the Kim Jung Un rule. There are a number of cases that have developed the constitutionally implied

Founded in 2006 by Australian journalist Julian Assange, the website WikiLeaks had quickly risen in infamy over the past few years (Majerol 19). The controversial website had posted hundreds of thousands of classified documents about the Iraq and Afghanistan war, revealing government cover-ups, a secret assassination unit and the killing of civilians among many things. The release of these confidential documents has produced two opposing views on whether or not WikiLeaks is a good thing (Pilger 18).

Former NSA agent, Edward Snowden, empowered U.S. citizens by releasing top secret governemnt files documenting the government’s unwarranted, illegal surveillance on ally countries and unknowing american citizens. His act of courage brought an era of awareness to the masses of the unconstitutional acts of the sovereign. Today, U.S. citizens can thank Snowden for confirming previously far-fetched conspiracy theories and for giving the people a chance to fight back against oppressive government tactics.

In “Assessing the First Amendment as a Defense for WikiLeaks and Other Publishers of Previously Undisclosed Government Information,” Janelle Allen explores whether WikiLeaks should be entitled to the same protections that traditional media outlets are given when they publish classified information. In her work, she goes over two possible avenues that the government can take if it wants to silence WikiLeaks; the two options are: prior restraint (censorship) and the Espionage Act. Allen, in order to bolster her argument that WikiLeaks should be entitled to the same protections given to traditional media outlets, goes over cases that fall under what is known as the Daily Mail Principle. This principle allows publications to publish material

It’s the summer of 2013; media outlets everywhere were plastering the words “NSA” and “Snowden” across their broadcasts. What did this mean for the typical citizen and who was Snowden? In June 2013 a man named Edward Snowden who worked with the National Security Agency (NSA) released over 1.7 million documents of NSA data to the public (“Edward Snowden”). There were many questions to be asked and an overwhelming amount of information and misinformation provided by the media.

Assange said of the information his organization releases: “None of it is dangerous. Vastly more detailed things have been released by the United States government itself. By Congress, for example, who a year and a half ago released a list of all US nuclear sites”. Wikileaks also refuses to claim responsibility for the actual information, saying they only act as a publisher of information, never producing any themselves. They claim their only job is to ensure the information’s legitimacy and put it out there. Their legality is wholly debatable for most, but Assange says “Revealing illegal behaviour is, in most countries, not illegal.” Supporters also argue it should not be illegal at all. But Wikileaks is a symbol now, and it is most likely the spirit of the nature of their work will live

Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency (N.S.A) subcontractor turned whistle-blower is nothing short of a hero. His controversial decision to release information detailing the highly illegal ‘data mining’ practices of the N.S.A have caused shockwaves throughout the world and have raised important questions concerning how much the government actually monitors its people without their consent or knowledge. Comparable to Mark Felt in the Watergate scandals, Daniel Ellsberg with the Pentagon Papers, Edward Snowden joins the rank of infamous whistleblowers who gave up their jobs, livelihood, and forever will live under scrutiny of the public all in the service to the American people. Edward Snowden released information detailing the

Privacy throughout the ages has been something people have valued and expected to have. Everyone has the right to their little own secrets and live life the constant watching of others. As technology advances throughout each decade, the world has become more and more accessible through a computer screen. Everyday activities have integrated with technology, from shopping online to requesting transportation through a phone app. Although technology makes everyday life convenient, it also leaves behind a digital footprint or data that can be seen by others. People were unaware that, through this technology, their privacy was being intruded upon by the government until Edward Snowden revealed that the NSA were secretly conducting illegal spying on the American people. This revelation by Snowden opened the eyes of the American public to the truth. In my eyes, Snowden’s actions ultimately make him a hero, someone who jeopardized his life and stood up to the law for what he believed was the right thing to do.

Late last month, nations around the world recognized the first ever “International Day for Universal Access to Information,” in accordance with a recently adopted UNESCO resolution. The day’s purpose is to commemorate the importance of the right to information and increased transparency from leaders and government around the world. And even though the day has remained relatively unknown to most people, its message resonates all too well for the American public. We need only look to this year’s leaks pertaining to both Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump to understand this.

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is a U.S. House of Representatives bill with the stated purpose, "To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes." (1) SOPA proposes to accomplish those goals by allowing the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright owners to take action against websites thought to be facilitating copyright infringement.

Claimed by its founder to be a non-profit organization/website, Wikileaks was firstly launched in 2006. Some call it an open government group that enables public witnessing (Nayar, 2011; Rosewall & Warren, 2010), while others see it as a representation of a new type of “sovereignty in the global political and economy sphere” (Bodó, 2011, p. 3). The website uses the term “wiki” which was followed after Wikipedia due to its anonymous contributors and

12 Years A Slave and Hunger two are films by highly acclaimed director Steve McQueen. 12 years a Slave deals with the inequality and injustice that shook the African American Nation before the civil war. The film forces viewers to face the harsh reality of slavery while also being an unflinching look at human brutality and is an incredibly vivid and authentic portrayal of American slavery. His other film, Hunger, deals with the political injustice and unfairness experienced by the Northern Ireland republican prisoners, who were refused to be labelled as political prisoners; including the lengths that they were willing to go to in order to receive justice and freedom of information, opinion and expression. The two films have a common theme of facing and overcoming injustice and inequality, which can be seen as a reflection on McQueen’s values and highlight the experiences and unjust and often unfair lifestyle that McQueen experienced while growing up and becoming the artist he is today.