Freedom of Speech or Not

Introduction of Case Study – Release of Classified Military Documents

In 2010, WikiLeaks released tons of military documents which raised worldwide discussion.

• On 5^th April 2010, WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video describing the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people, including two Reuters’ news staff – Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad in 2007. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded. Since the time of attack, Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act. However, Reuters was not succeeded until WikiLeaks released it.

Source: WikiLeaks. (2010, April 5). Collateral Murder. Retrieved from http://collateralmurder.com/.

•  On 25^th July 2010, WikiLeaks has released around 92,000 documents about war in Afghanistan, which were not available to the public before, through Der Spiegel, The New York Times and The Guardian. The documents consist of information on the deaths of civilians, increased Taliban attacks, and involvement by Pakistan and Iran in the insurgency.

Actions of US Government 

• On July 6, 2010, Private Bradley Manning, a 22-year-old analyst with the United States Army in Baghdad, was charged with disclosing Collateral Murder video. He is currently imprisoned in Kuwait. 300 supporters marched at Fort Meade.

• The U.S. Justice Department opened a criminal probe of WikiLeaks and founder Julian Assange
• The Washington Post reported that the department was considering charges under the Espionage Act which is difficult because of First Amendment protections for the press. 
• Federal prosecutors have also considered prosecuting Assange for trafficking in stolen government property. 

Words Explanation:
WikiLeaks is an international not-for-profit media organization. They publish submissions of private, secret, and classified media from anonymous news sources, new leaks and whistleblowers. They announce that their goal is to “bring important news and information to the public”. The three basic principles that WikiLeaks based on are “the defense of freedom of speech and media publishing, the improvement of common historical record and the support of the rights of all people to create new history.”

First Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. The amendment prohibits the abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press and prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Journalists have never been prosecuted for soliciting and publishing classified information because they are protected by the First Amendment.

Espionage Act of 1917 is a United States federal law, prohibits any attempt to interfere with military operations, to support U.S. enemies during wartime, to promote insubordination in the military. It also relates to freedom of speech.

Moral Dilemma in WikiLeaks Case

On the one hand, we think or believe that confidential communication or documents of governments should remain secrets; on the other hand, we appreciate WikiLeaks’s advocacy of freedom of speech. Hence, at the end, which side of this moral dilemma do you stand for?

Different Perspectives towards the Case

Source: N.d. (July 12, 2011). Revolution Truth- WikiLeaks and a Truth Revolution. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd0Z4G8V1uo.

Support

• Brazil President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said

WikiLeaks had ‘‘exposed a diplomacy that had appeared unreachable.’’ ^[1] and further criticized the arrest of Julian Assange as ‘‘an attack on freedom of expression’’.^[2]

• Ron Paul , Republican Congressman of Texas, said in a Fox Business interview,

‘‘In a free society we're supposed to know the truth’’ ‘‘In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble’’ ‘‘lying is not patriotic’’ ^[3]

• Some Australia media professionals said,

“In essence, WikiLeaks, an organization that aims to expose official secrets, is doing what the media have always done: bringing to light material that governments would prefer to keep secret. It is the media’s duty to responsibly report such material if it comes into their possession. To aggressively attempt to shut WikiLeaks down, to threaten to prosecute those who publish official leaks, and to pressure companies to cease doing commercial business with WikiLeaks, is a serious threat to democracy, which relies on a free and fearless press.’’ ^[4]

• Internet Society stated

“free expression should not be restricted by governmental or private controls over computer hardware or software, telecommunications infrastructure, or other essential components of the Internet”. ^[5]

• WikiLeaks awarded Economist New Media Award which was presented by Index on Censorship in 2008. ^[6]
• WikiLeaks awarded Media Award which was presented by Amnesty International in 2009. ^[7]
• WikiLeaks nominated Nobel Peace Prize in 2011. ^[8]

Criticisms

• U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said

‘‘this disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests, it is an attack on the international community.’’ ^[9]

• Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, said

‘‘The core responsibility, and therefore legal liability, goes to those individuals responsible for that initial unauthorized release.’’ ^[10]

• John Young, operator of Cryptome, claimed,

‘‘would not trust them (anonymous) with information if it had any value, or if it put me at risk or anyone that I cared about at risk.’’ ^[11]

• Reporters Without Borders, criticized,

‘‘indiscriminately publishing 92,000 classified reports reflects a real problem of methodology and, therefore, of credibility. Journalistic work involves the selection of information. The argument with which you defend yourself, namely that WikiLeaks is not made up of journalists, is not convincing.’’ ^[12]

Our Position

Many critics reject WikiLeaks due to the potential consequences or dangers that WikiLeaks would bring to the influenced parties. Thus, we would use one of the moral approaches - utilitarian approach which is an approach focus on consequence of action - as our position to analyze if we should defend our right to speak or keep documents confidential.

The Approach of Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that holds that an action is right if it produces, or it tends to produce, the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people affected by the action. In utilitarian approach, actions take on moral value only when considered in conjunction with the effects that follow upon them, i.e. the consequences. Also, an action is right not only for few parties affected but also for anyone else similarly situated. Therefore, all persons affected by the action should be considered.

Applying utilitarian approach to WikiLeaks case, firstly, we should find out those parties that are affected by WikiLeaks action.

• Affected Parties Include:

WikiLeaks itself
The US government and military
The US citizens and the public
Citizens in Afghan and Iraq
The global public and society

Then, we should analyze the consequences that those parties have, including both good and bad consequences.

• Good Consequences:

For American citizens and the public, through WikiLeaks cables, they know what their government and military is doing and in what area they put tax payment. What government and military do become transparent and it is good for policy transparency.

For the victimized countries and citizens, due to WikiLeaks cables, what they have suffered is known by the global public. Global citizens can blame or criticize American military by word of mouth and even actions. Therefore, justice for those victims can be defended.

For the global public, they have ways to know what has happened in the world. Their right of freely accessing to important information is protected by WikiLeaks. Hopefully, American government and military can restrain themselves and reduce their destruction on those victimized countries. Also, it forces American officials to take their responsibility for what they have done.

• Bad Consequences:

For US government and military, WikiLeaks disclose a lot of their secrets, which embarrass them to the world. Even though US government tried to minimize the negative effects WikiLeaks cables bring, it is still in vain and causes many dissatisfied emotions from all over the world. This also causes Americans to rethink the intentions of US military’s action towards those victimized countries. All in all, US government and military have been suspected and blamed by its citizens as well as global public, which have seriously damaged America’s moral image and international reputation

For WikiLeaks itself, because of its release, its founder has been arrested and threatened. Also, American government has exert pressure on some corporations such as Visa and MasterCard corporations to halt business with WikiLeaks, thus making WikiLeaks in a very difficult situation.


For some victimized countries, since WikiLeaks reveal some unnecessarily detailed information such as the sensitive details of Afghans who had assisted ISAF forces, some individuals may be exposed into danger in their hostile environment. Nevertheless, fortunately, no one has been attacked up to now.

In general, although there are bad consequences and American government is forced to stand in a passive and embarrassed situation, we think that WikiLeaks produces more good consequences than bad consequences.

Firstly, it is because it forces American government, and even other countries’ government, to make their policy more transparent. It is good for the public to know what their governments are doing and monitor their actions. If governments are doing some immoral decisions or misconducting, the public have ways and rights to blame them and make them become much better. As the UK Financial Times comments, “ in order to protect the freedom of information, the embarrassments of some countries involved in WikiLeaks are just a small consideration.”

Moreover, as mentioned before, no one has been really hurt due to WikiLeaks cables - the most serious potential consequence is not bad at all. Therefore, in a large scope, WikiLeaks has produced greatest good for the greatest people. In conclude, we think that, from utilitarian point of view, the action WikiLeaks is moral and freedom of speech is defended.

Extension – Freedom of Speech

Without a doubt, the above WikiLeaks’s case raises the issue of moral dilemma over freedom of speech and confidentiality, in other words, it challenges the level of freedom of speech. Let’s imagine that there is a world with extreme freedom of speech and a world without freedom of speech, what would the world like respectively?

• A World WITH EXTREME Freedom of Speech

A world with extreme freedom of speech means that everyone has extreme right to express themselves. Hence, the world would be much transparent. More information about individual behaviors, business practices, and countries’ culture would be released, focusing everyone to do better. As Minxin, P. in ‘‘Corruption threatens China’s Future’’ said, when measuring corruption in China, ‘‘the general lack of transparency adds to the difficulty.’’ ; but in a world with extreme freedom of speech, more information would help to ease the difficulty, helping that people, company, or countries to do better.

Also, the world would be full of different and creative ideas. With extreme freedom of speech, people express themselves extremely, creating tons of different ideas which would help improvement of governments’ policies, invention of products, innovation of business practices, and even revolution of the world.

However, with extreme freedom of speech, we would probably be information overloaded. It is doubtless that different people have different opinions towards an issue; but with extreme freedom of speech, the situation would be magnified. We might be too well-informed. We would be difficult to make decisions in this situation.

Also, there would be more conflict. Coin has only two sides, so as normal opinion over an issue. Nevertheless, with extreme freedom of speech, more sides would be generated. There would not be only good or bad, but different definition or level of good or bad. Different sides argue with each other. In individual level, this would make relationship worse. In business level, this would ruin deals between companies. In social level, this would destroy the city due to lots of protests.

• A World WITHOUT Freedom of Speech

On the other side, a world without freedom of speech means that everyone does not even have the basic right to express themselves. Hence, the world would be closed. A country would not know what is happening in B country. As Michael Reagan in ‘‘When is different just different, and when is different wrong’’ stated, ‘‘What works in a company’s home country can fail in a country with different standard of ethical conduct. Such difficulties are unavoidable for business people who live and work aboard’’. What he said is true. If we do not know what is happening in other countries, it is not possible for us to do business with people in other countries.

Also, the world would be standardized. We would not search for information; information would eventually search us. We would just accept and believe what we told. Take North Korea, which is probably one of the countries with very limit freedom of speech, as an example. Citizens are ruled by an exclusive dictator, brainwashing is frequently practiced, and concentration camps are still existed and so on. This would narrow the possibilities a society can take and create massive poverty.

    

However, without free speech, the world would be peaceful. As we said, everyone would accept and believe what they told. There would be only one side, no opposite side at all. Thus, there would be no argument and no conflict. The world would be harmonious. We would not need to decide as there would be no choice. The level of loyalty would be extremely high, making implementation of policies of business and government efficient.

In general, it seems that having freedom of speech is better. However, is freedom of speech always ethical? Is there any moral guidance for the freedom of speech? We try to draw some in following part:

• It Must be True

If someone freely spread some information, but the information is false or nonexistent, do you still regard this “freedom of speech” moral? Of course not, as this kind of information deceives others, misleads others and may cause huge loss or harm. This kind of situation is quite common in real life; for example, after the Wenchuan Earthquake occurred in China in 2008, someone posted subsequent aftershock alarm on the Internet, which was later confirmed as rumors. It is just someone wanted to take advantage of this event to make people frightened and to make the society into chaos. Therefore, the first guideline of a moral free speech is to state something true

•  The Intention Should Be Good

But, is it ethical to freely speak so long as what you are saying is true? Consider if your close friend told you that she has a drug problem, is it ethical for you to announce that on Facebook? The answer is no. The intention to release this information is just to fulfill the curiosity of the public at the expense of your friends’ hurt. Therefore, freedom of speech should have a good intention. “Good” means all the right things defined by the society, such as not hurting, not slandering and so on. Considering the case of WikiLeaks, its intention claimed to be “provide a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices.” Therefore, the second guideline is that, freedom of speech should have a good intention.

•  The Potential Consequence Should Be Considered

Telling the truth, with a good intention is still not enough, sometimes the freedom of speech may hurt some innocent parties, so that we should also think about the consequences. For example, WikiLeaks revealed some unnecessary information such as the sensitive details of Afghans who had assisted ISAF forces. This information may expose individuals into danger in their hostile environment. Therefore, the third guideline is, freedom of speech should not harm innocent parties.

Freedom of Speech in Business World

Freedom of Speech in the Workplace

Freedom of speech is everywhere. In business level, how can we handle it in the workplace?

• Manager vs. Empoyees

As David, A. T. and Robin, J. E. in ‘‘Making difference matter: a new paradigm for managing diversity’’ said, diversity can help company ‘‘how to design process, reach goals, frame tasks, create effective teams, communicate ideas, and lead.’’ and ‘‘help companies grow and improve by challenging basic assumptions about an organization’s functions, strategies, operations, practices, and procedures.’’ Diversity includes different opinions. Allowing employees to share constructive criticism is somehow the key to success.

Take United States as an example, certain laws, do provide em­­ployees with some protection for certain types of expression at work, such as workplace discrimination and harass­ment. Managers should also protect the rights of employees to let them freely express their thoughts, criticism or any other ideas. However, managers should have some tactics to handle freedom of speech among employees well. As Florida, R. and Goodnight, J. in ‘‘Managing for Creativity’’ stated ‘‘Minimizing hassles create an ideal condition  for creative thought.’’ In our words, it helps create freedom of speech. Thus, we recommend managers to:

• Be prepared to hear bad news. 
• Be nice. When team members truly believe they can talk to you without fear of having their head snapped off, you'll get great information.
• Encourage respectful dialog at all levels, and never retaliate against an employee for saying something that hurts his feeling
• Frequently ask questions like, ‘‘what do you think?’’ to get great ideas and comments and ensure throwing down of welcome mat

As Ketter, P. in ‘‘What's the big deal’’ stated ‘‘employees have a responsibility of their own.’’ Thus, in addition of managers' responsibility, employees should also be eager to take a part or courage to promote freedom of speech.

Freedom of Commercial Speech 

• Company vs. Public

There is another arising concern regarding to freedom of speech in business world, which is freedom of commercial speech.

The term "commercial communications" refers to any publicity activities intended as part of a marketing process for goods or services. The main activities associated with commercial communications are advertising, public relations, sales promotion, direct and relationship marketing, events marketing and commercial sponsorship.

We want to take tobacco advertising as an example. It is now one of the most highly regulated forms of marketing. Some or all forms of tobacco advertising are banned in many countries. For example, tobacco advertising on Hong Kong television was outlawed on December 1, 1990 (Legislation.gov.hk, 1990). In Singapore, tobacco advertising was completely banned on 1 March 1971. (The Singapore Herald, 1971).

We believe that everyone has a basic right to freedom of expression, but only insofar as no harm comes to others as a result. When freedom of expression results in harm to others, society is morally obligated to restrict this freedom. Cigarette advertising, one form of free speech, causes grave harm. Smoking now accounts for at least 350,000 tobacco-related deaths each year. The costs of smoking to society as a whole are also staggering. In addition, cigarette smoking is responsible for an estimated $23 billion in health care costs annually and over $30 billion in lost productivity. Furthermore, cigarettes are the leading cause of residential fires and fire deaths in this nation.

We also hold an opinion that society has a duty to protect the right of individuals not to be deceived or manipulated. And, according to Joe Tye, a staunch critic of the tobacco industry, "No advertising is more deceptive than that used to sell cigarettes. Images of independence are used to sell a product that creates profound dependence. Images of health and vitality are used to sell a product that causes disease and suffering. Images of life are used to sell a product that causes death."

Cigarette advertisements also rely almost exclusively on psychological manipulation. Alluring images of power, prestige, glamour, success, vitality and sex appeal are held before the public's eye, creating a positive association between "the good life" and smoking. Such ads bypass conscious reasoning. They unconsciously arouse in a person a powerful desire that is not rationally weighed against one's own best interests.

In conclusion, in this case, we think that society is morally obligated to ban the promotion of a product linked to so much suffering and devastation and that places such a drain on society's resources.

Footnotes:

[1] Antonova, M. (2010, December 9). Putin leads backlash over WikiLeaks boss detention. Sydney Morning Herald.

[2] N.d. (2010, December 10). Wikileaks: Brazil President Lula backs Julian Assange. BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11966193.

[3] N.d. (2010, December 10). Ron Paul: Lying is not patriotic [Video file]. Video posted to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywoInPNXZJk.

[4] Walkleys. (2010, December 13). Australian Media’s Finest Defend WikiLeaks. Retrieved from http://www.walkleys.com/news/1076/.

[5] Curtis, S. (2010, December 8). ISOC: WikiLeaks attacks threathen free expression. Eweek Europe. Retrieved from http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/isoc-wikileaks-attacks-threaten-free-expression-15294.

[6] Dwyer, D. (2011, February 3). Norwegian Nominates Wikileaks' Julian Assange for Nobel Peace Prize. ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikileaks-julian-assange-nominated-nobel-peace-prize/story?id=12825383.

[7] N.d. (2008, April 22). Winners of index on censorship freedom of expression awards announced. Index on Censorship. Retrieved from http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2008/04/winners-of-index-on-censorship-freedom-of-expression-award-announced/

[8] N.d. (2009, June 3). Amnesty International Media Awards 2009: full list of winners | Media | guardian.co.uk. Guardian (UK). Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jun/03/amnesty-international-media-awards.

[9] N.d. (2010, Nobvember 29). Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls WikiLeaks documents 'an attack on the international community. New York Post. Retrieved from http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/obama_administration_in_damage_control_JBSDPnEISQvcyu0ZfHx7XL#ixzz16kRfnGL0.

[10] N.d. (2010, December 8). Wikileaks: Australia FM blames US, not Julian Assange. BBC. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11945558.

[11] McCullagh, D. (2010, July 20). Wikileaks' estranged co-founder becomes a critic (Q&A) | Privacy Inc. – CNET News. News.cnet.com. Retrieved from  http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20011106-281.html.

[12] N.d. (2010, December 1). Reporters Sans Frontières – Open letter to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange: ‘‘A bad precedent for the Internet's future. En.rsf.org. Retrieved from http://en.rsf.org/united-states-open-letter-to-wikileaks-founder-12-08-2010,38130.html.

Sources:

Business Management Daily. (2011, October 18). Freedom of speech: Does it apply at work?. Retrieved from http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/20999/freedom-of-speech-does-it-apply-at-work.

Gebauer, M., Goetz, J., Hoyng, H., Koelbl, S., Rosenbach, M., Schmitz, G. P. (25 July 2010). Explosive Leaks Provide Image of War from Those Fighting It. Der Spiegel.

Ma, W. T. (2012, January 31). Analysis of WikiLeaks to government management. Retrieved from http://www.qstheory.cn/zz/jsfwxzf/201201/t20120131_136280.htm.

N.d. (2010, December 10). The impact of Julian Assange. Retrieved from http://finance.591hx.com/article/2010-12-10/0000099595s.shtml.

WikiLeaks. (2010, April 5). Collateral Murder. Retrieved from http://collateralmurder.com/.

Wikipedia. (N.d.). WikiLeaks. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks.

Li, K. (2010, December 21). Pros and Cons of WikiLeaks. New Epoch Weekly. Retrieved from http://www.epochweek.com/b5/204/8829.htm.

Extension
First of all, we would like to thank you for all the comments and appreciation.

In this extension, we do want to add a better introduction of this blog. In the previous content, we did have introduction of the case and tried to have a better structure in explaining ideas. However, an introduction of the blog is missed.

Actually, our blog is discussing a controversial and ethical-related issue – freedom of speech – by using the case of WikiLeak, making readers to rethink the choices between confidentiality and freedom of speech.

US government always advocates freedom of human rights and transparency of policies. However, action is always bigger than words. Does she really do so? In this blog, we would like to use the case of WikiLeak to analyze if the action of government is ethical. Different opinions from different parties on the issue of WikiLeak will be showed. Our position in the issue will also be stood by using the utilitarianism approach. Moreover, hypothetic assumption will be made to help discuss the level of freedom of speech we should have. And we would try to set principles and rule while advocating freedom of speech.