FIRST DRAFT
WikiLeaks has released classified information from within the US government to the “virtual sphere” which enables public scrutiny of both the leaks and our government (Papacharissi). Furthermore, the dialogues WikiLeaks has generated regarding the issue of leaked US classified documents in virtual spheres, such as online news publications or academic articles, are evidence of the level of value WikiLeaks lends to a public debate over our democracy. Thus, WikiLeaks facilitates a critical relationship between US citizens and their government and strengthens the building blocks of a healthy democracy, which is of course reflected in our constitution with the First Amendment.
The digital nature of WikiLeaks assists in circumventing the US government's attempts to contain classified information, thereby placing public knowledge above governmental secrecy. Traditionally speaking, public procurement of leaked information was reliant upon the physical relationships between journalists and their sources. However, it also occurred within the physical limitations of the information’s publication and distribution. Furthermore, as WikiLeaks is a direct link between the public and classified information, the public is no longer strictly reliant on news publications or books to receive leaked information. Indeed, when considering Papacharissi’s “virtual reincarnation of the public sphere,” which is constructed through the internet’s infrastructure that exists without limit, regulation, or physical boundaries, it is evident how WikiLeaks’ represents a new version of longstanding methods of dispersing leaked information (p.3).
The WikiLeaks website makes available a lump-download of archives containing leaked documents, but it also systematizes and summarizes the information for the viewer. The act of compiling information for public scrutiny in and of itself presents a threat to national security, as is seen in the United States v. Progressive Inc. (Davidson p.4). This case involved the Madison based magazine The Progressive which published a piece of writing “The H-Bomb Secret: How We Got It, Why We’re Telling It” that (claimed the author) put together information available in the public domain. The government’s position on the case was, “ . . .even though the material was in the public domain . . .”national security” permitted barring its publication because “when drawn together,” when “synthesized,” the information presents “immediate, direct and irreparable harm to the interests of the United States” (4). The author (Howard Morland) was certain that national security is built on the dissemination of information, and on honest and open public debate, because important political decisions are to be made by the public. Ultimately, the case was dropped because information about the H-bomb had been previously released by a Madison newspaper.
Our constitution’s First Amendment is the basis for ongoing legal proceedings between the courts, the government and US citizens as it relates to the dissemination of classified information. Legal action WikiLeaks incurred occurred for the first time in 2008. A judge ruled in favor of the First Amendment to keep the website open in response to a Swiss bank’s (Juilus Bear) attempt at shutting it down via an injunction after WikiLeaks published incriminating documents.
WikiLeaks website demonstrates accessibility with its utilization of familiar navigational tools, and summaries of the classified information they make available. When visiting the webpage, a viewer can scroll to the bottom of the homepage and click a button to access an archive of 20,000 published leaks. The website also includes a search engine found under the heading “War Diary: Iraq War Logs.” This engine acts in a similar way to a library database search. When typing in a keyword, like “bodies,” all logs possessing the keyword are brought up. In this way the website presents “classified” information via familiar internet search engine channels.
Sources:
Assange, Julian. WikiLeaks.org. https://wikileaks.org. 2006. 2 October 2014.
Davidson, Sandra. "Leaks, Leakers, and Journalists: Adding Historical Context to The Age of WikiLeaks." http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/hascom34&div=5&id=&page=. Heinonline. Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal (2011): Web. 20 October 2014.
Paparcahrissi, Zizi. "The Virtual Sphere 2.0: The Internet, the Public Sphere and beyond." http://www.ciberdemocracia.net/victorsampedro/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Papacharissi-The-Virtual-Sphere-Revisited-Handbook.pdf. Ciberdemocracia.net. Handbook of Internet Politics: Web. 26 October 2014.
The digital nature of WikiLeaks assists in circumventing the US government's attempts to contain classified information, thereby placing public knowledge above governmental secrecy. Traditionally speaking, public procurement of leaked information was reliant upon the physical relationships between journalists and their sources. However, it also occurred within the physical limitations of the information’s publication and distribution. Furthermore, as WikiLeaks is a direct link between the public and classified information, the public is no longer strictly reliant on news publications or books to receive leaked information. Indeed, when considering Papacharissi’s “virtual reincarnation of the public sphere,” which is constructed through the internet’s infrastructure that exists without limit, regulation, or physical boundaries, it is evident how WikiLeaks’ represents a new version of longstanding methods of dispersing leaked information (p.3).
The WikiLeaks website makes available a lump-download of archives containing leaked documents, but it also systematizes and summarizes the information for the viewer. The act of compiling information for public scrutiny in and of itself presents a threat to national security, as is seen in the United States v. Progressive Inc. (Davidson p.4). This case involved the Madison based magazine The Progressive which published a piece of writing “The H-Bomb Secret: How We Got It, Why We’re Telling It” that (claimed the author) put together information available in the public domain. The government’s position on the case was, “ . . .even though the material was in the public domain . . .”national security” permitted barring its publication because “when drawn together,” when “synthesized,” the information presents “immediate, direct and irreparable harm to the interests of the United States” (4). The author (Howard Morland) was certain that national security is built on the dissemination of information, and on honest and open public debate, because important political decisions are to be made by the public. Ultimately, the case was dropped because information about the H-bomb had been previously released by a Madison newspaper.
Our constitution’s First Amendment is the basis for ongoing legal proceedings between the courts, the government and US citizens as it relates to the dissemination of classified information. Legal action WikiLeaks incurred occurred for the first time in 2008. A judge ruled in favor of the First Amendment to keep the website open in response to a Swiss bank’s (Juilus Bear) attempt at shutting it down via an injunction after WikiLeaks published incriminating documents.
WikiLeaks website demonstrates accessibility with its utilization of familiar navigational tools, and summaries of the classified information they make available. When visiting the webpage, a viewer can scroll to the bottom of the homepage and click a button to access an archive of 20,000 published leaks. The website also includes a search engine found under the heading “War Diary: Iraq War Logs.” This engine acts in a similar way to a library database search. When typing in a keyword, like “bodies,” all logs possessing the keyword are brought up. In this way the website presents “classified” information via familiar internet search engine channels.
Sources:
Assange, Julian. WikiLeaks.org. https://wikileaks.org. 2006. 2 October 2014.
Davidson, Sandra. "Leaks, Leakers, and Journalists: Adding Historical Context to The Age of WikiLeaks." http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/hascom34&div=5&id=&page=. Heinonline. Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal (2011): Web. 20 October 2014.
Paparcahrissi, Zizi. "The Virtual Sphere 2.0: The Internet, the Public Sphere and beyond." http://www.ciberdemocracia.net/victorsampedro/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Papacharissi-The-Virtual-Sphere-Revisited-Handbook.pdf. Ciberdemocracia.net. Handbook of Internet Politics: Web. 26 October 2014.
Comments
Post a Comment