Right to Know: Freedom of speech in an electronic era.

If Julian Assange is persecuted for opening the diplomatic channels, every media outlet should be persecuted for the same act. His persecution is wasting taxpayers’ money. I do not think this is ought to be brought up at all. Time and energy are being wasted on the wrong cause.

Assange offered to be persecuted by the Swedish police here in the U.S. and in Sweden. So how did he end up on the chopping block to go to prison? How can all the gold posts be changing all the time and then not supply documents to report or validate their point for even starting a persecution?

Many people have claimed that anything less than executing is too kind of a penalty. That could be true, but it is clear that a failed attempt to persecute Assange would surely be worse than not persecuting him at all. The United States has already been painted as very ineffectual as a result of the leaks; a persecution would definitely not help the United States.

A successful prosecution, on the other hand, would not achieve the desired prevention effect.

Come on United States, face it!

The WikiLeaks copycats are quickly proliferating around the world; there is no way to catch them all. It is just like trying to catch two mice at the same time with a net where only one could fit.

Bottom line, no one can shot down this mass media effect. It is just like trying to close an eggshell that has already been broken.

Also, a conviction would make a martyr of Assange, encouraging fellow American citizens, and others, to test the limits of the constitutional laws in an attempt to stop authorities from moving any further or continuing to press any charges.

Not only that, but we are in an electronic media era, where some people do not even go to the grocery store in order to get their groceries anymore. This trial could particularly cause some damage to American freedom of speech. It would definitely be a challenge to try to make a distinction between what the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the L.A. Times have done in comparison to WikiLeaks or Assange. Many other journalists receive classified information, which they publish on a regular basis, but nowhere are they mentioned when it comes to reporting illicit acts.

Some people say that we must stop journalists from seeking and publishing classified information. Stopping journalists could be a good idea, but that would cause a different type of damage. In pure reality, disclosure of illegal or indiscreet government behaviors would cause national security officials to have to think twice about what they are doing in secret with their current lack of direct oversight.

This reminds me of the issue with drugs. Now, when they are illegal, everyone wants to have them and to be able to do as much as they can with them. But once they become legal or available somewhere, it will be like as though nobody cares anymore.

Diminishing the ability to freely report will definitely diminish a vital form of accountability, in a time and place where it is needed the most in order to bring to light important information that our nation should be aware of.

Wake up government!

Why worry so much about what Assange is doing? The government should focus instead on tightening the security that allowed the leaks in the first place. Although in the current diplomatic environment, this could sometimes be easier said that actually being done.

Nevertheless, many people agree with the above statement, but it is fair to say government officials could be using the opposite strategy. They seem to be making people focus on who Assange is and what should be done in order to persecute him, instead of having people focus on the channels which embarrassed the government so much, and what they are all about.

In my opinion, Assange and Bradley Manning, by publishing thousands of classified documents while committing no crime, have performed a public service. But, predictably, no one is grateful.

It makes sense if you do not think about it. These times that we are going through now represent a generational challenge in the United States, much like the peace movement of the late 1960’s, the Feminist movements in different periods of the 20^th century, and the awakening of environment consciousness that has taken hold in recent years.

Now, for the Internet generation, this is our challenge and this is our time. We support a cause that radical because it has elected to scrutinize the state. The state has asserted its authority by surveillance, monitoring and regimenting all of us, all the while hiding behind cloaks of security and opaqueness. Surely, it was only a matter of time before citizens pushed back and asserted their rights. The legal rights which citizens are hardly given true access to, because of all the regulations that are currently being imposed when it comes to the disclosure of anything “secret”.

This brings me to a stronger point, that it is important to recognize the difference between secrecy and privacy. They are clearly two different things, except for in the eyes of the government. The government wants to make those words synonymous. That being said, I strongly believe individuals, not governments, have the right to privacy. Strong powers must be held accountable, and the weak must be protected. We must believe in transparent power, not in transparent people. It is our duty to educate ourselves about what is surrounding us.

Let’s not be foolish and let the government decide what is best for us. Not only do we have free will, but we also have the right to know. The right to know that other people’s lives should not be controlled by a small group of individuals somewhere in Washington, D.C.

Some people say they would rather not know the truth. It is certainly fine if a person does not want to know the truth, but it certainly not the best of decisions to let someone else tell us what the entire truth is. This is how bullshit ends up being history. There is no transparency.

Assange is reporting the news rather than addressing rallies. Although this is not ordinary news, it ought to be disclosed to all of us who, with ignorance, have accepted every bit of information we thought was true before these alternative channels were publicized.

This is a critical lynch pin, and if the media sources such as twitter and the New York Times can be intimidated, then the rest of the press will surely go along. The government gets it; if you can intimidate whistle-blowers and the press who covers them, then you can suppress the damaging information and go on doing whatever illicit activity it is that you want to hide from the public. Guess what? The government will execute its power and do whatever it takes to make things the way they want them to be.

This is a nation run by the people, not a nation that people are just a part of and have no right to change. As many people may recall this quote: “People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

Stay at the front line of the truth

Why is that some officials who have advised us to watch for and report suspicious activity, react so badly when the light is turned on them? According to Assange, it is possible to be a member of a conspiracy without even knowing that you are. In this case, a lot of diplomats actually know that they are part of a conspiracy, but they prefer to think that they are not. When it comes to publishing materials that are of public interest, the protection of private life against the freedom of expression should lie in the contribution the material has to the public interest.

I find it interesting that some diplomats have been implementing the precaution principle when it comes to the environment but are assertive when it comes to the reporting of the confidential materials revealed to the public. Diplomats have come up with hypothetical scenarios in which they claim that somehow, someday those stories might somehow harm someone somewhere.

To tone it down a little bit, in the own words of Assange: "If your objective is to get a rise out of media that are fear-based media," he said, "of course, doing something destructive is always a great way to go. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's right." Later, he added, "I don't really care about what's legal anymore because

there are so many different versions of that. I care about what's right."

Diplomatic silence. This is what covert sources want, but what we need is transparency, integrity and honesty. Interesting how everyone singles out Assange and WikiLeaks, yet do not mention the monstrosities that the United States have been committing, to say nothing of what other powerful organizations have done.

THEREFORE, I have arrived at the conclusion that Assange should not be prosecuted. Many people want him behind bars, but why don’t you think about this?

That which is assertive without evidence can be dismissed without argument.

This is the main reason that it is okay for all of those documents to have been brought to light. I just wish that all of those leaks had been brought up at an earlier point in time. Since if those leaks had existed, something tells me that they would have created a pressure valve for those agents who were terribly worried about what might happen and frustrated by their superiors seeming indifferent to provocative matters.