Anonymous is peacefully campaigning for Freedom
of Speech everywhere in all forms. Freedom of
Speech for: The Internet, for journalism and
journalists, and citizens of the world at large.
Regardless of what you think or have to say;
Anonymous is campaigning for you.
...unless you are Gene Simmons or Sarah Palin, both of whom Anonymous has DDoS'ed for saying things Anonymous did not like.
Perhaps Anonymous should submit this essay to Anonymous's ninth-grade English teachers; I see that he and she are successfully writing at up to an eleventh-grade level now, in addition to demonstrating considerable mastery of last week's American History syllabus.
I’d argue this doesn’t count (or at least shouldn’t count) as freedom of speech. Because Freedom of Speech is an absolute value in that anyone should be able to express their opinions without being punished for it.
But the Wikileaks situation isn’t about opinion it’s about information. So the question is "Should distributing information also be considered Freedom of Speech"
If you include distributing information under the umbrella of Freedom of Speech then Freedom of Speech can’t be an absolute value. Ask yourself this hypothetical question: If someone got ahold of the United States nuclear launch codes would it be ok for them to distribute those codes freely on the Internet?
(for the case of the hypothetical assume it was a master code that couldn’t be changed)
I can’t imagine anyone saying that would be an acceptable way to act. Given that you have to admit that some form of censorship in regards to distributing information is a must. So the only way for Freedom of Speech to be an absolute value is if it only applies to expressions of opinion.
That doesn't make any sense. According to the U.S. Gov't, Freedom of Speech is not an absolute right (review the deeply discussed Supreme Court cases on the matter, often summed up with the question: is it a right to yell fire in a crowded theater?). So if Freedom of Speech were an absolute value when applied to an opinion, it would then be absolutely acceptable for someone to yell fire in a crowded theater if they struck a match. Factually, there is a fire. But it doesn't make it safe to yell fire when the fire is of no grave danger.
Perhaps according to Anonymous, Freedom of Speech is an absolute right. Perhaps Anonymous would disseminate nuclear launch codes. The probability that Anonymous would ever be in a position to do so or to cause such an event to occur is effectively zero, for the explicit reason that the gov't hides those launch codes instead of just asking the nice people out there like Anonymous to not acquire them or disseminate them.
Now imagine if you know of a fact that the gov't is doing something highly illegal, such as grinding up old people, processing them into green wafers and feeding the masses with them. It's not your opinion that this is illegal, it is a fact. It is also a gov't secret. If freedom of speech were only to be applied to your opinion, you would not be legally allowed to divulge the information.
By no rational measure could freedom of speech be applied only to opinions.
This is just a pet peeve of mine but the actual Franklin quote:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Is not the same as the often quoted paraphrase:
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
There will always be cases where security is more important than freedom. We can argue when such cases exist, but Franklin said "essential liberties" and "a little temporary security" for a reason.
I'm not actually making a call that shutting up Wikileaks is justified here, but I do find it annoying when people use that incorrect paraphrase.
It's a rather pretty letter and manifesto, good spin control, but i have a hard time believing it's an honest reflection of the majority of views of the participants. It's an odd development to see anon doing such opaque public relations attempts.
I hadn't thought of DOS attacks as an internet equivalent to a sit-in. But I think is an apt analogy, is a sit-in not equally disrupting to a brick and mortar business?
