Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Throughout our history, the definition of "freedom of speech" has been an evolution. While the above phrase form the First Amendment is a seemingly generous and progressive proclamation, the reality was not always quite so "free." It has taken decades for this to include women and people of color. This evolution is primarily impacted by cultural attitudes and those who push those limits.
Necessary to those wishing to expand the boundaries of free speech are the mechanisms we use to speak. This journey began with few options for mass communication: letters stamped with candle wax, the pony express, the Morse code... Today, we find ourselves with the world, literally, at our digital fingertips. Sifting through the feelings, facts and politics regarding modern attitudes towards secrecy (and the ways in which our technology can spread secrets) are far from cut and dry. We are truly in a place of complete flux with no true marker for how to find our way to a cultural conclusion about how to, when to (or if we should) keep our mouths shut.
In early mainstream America, the culture dictated people behave with decorum, grace and restraint. People did not swear in public. People did not cry openly. People kept their personal lives close to their chest. The private life of the individual was entirely that: private. If this privacy was violated it was an outrage. Life was all about facade.
While this remains true in certain circles and situations today, this mold has mostly been broken. Secrecy can breed harm and so, in cases like child abuse, our culture has been working hard to convince the people that privacy is a villain. This attitude in the name of safety also translates into a society with more people willing to talk about the hardships, the embarrassments and the mistakes of life. "Getting real" is appreciated and sharing the human experience is encouraged. So encouraged, in fact, that we now document and broadcast every movement we make through twitter, facebook and other online communication hubs. There are people around the world that I barely know but I can tell you what they ate today, that their relationship is a mess and they're ready to quit their job. I think it's safe to say, privacy and secrecy are not held with the same high regard as they once were.
Historically, Americans have been both comforted and intrigued by the stories of spies and other undercover operations. As a young but pompous country, few people gave thought to the harm that could come from governmental secrecy: it was a part of being a world power, a way to keep us safe and at the top of the food chain. The private lives of those in office and the choices they made about foreign policy were not thought to be meant for public consumption. There were things those in power did and we trusted them. On some level, we acknowledged we really didn't want to know.
As the respect for personal secrecy faded, so did the respect for governmental secrecy. Citizens became more active and interested in what was happening behind closed doors. With wars like Vietnam, the people began to doubt and, in some cases, despise the government. As attitudes began to shift, a level of transparency was both expected and required. Today, "both sides" seem to have a vested interest in exposing their political opponents for lies and inconsistencies. We watch movies like "Wag the Dog" and begin to feel duped. In general, Americans seem to feel "If you've done something wrong, the method to which we use to expose you is not my problem." That is, of course, if you are exposing someone on "your side."
Combining technology with building tensions and questions, we find ourselves looking at WikiLeaks and asking ourselves: how much transparency protects us and how much harms us? Where do we fall as a society on the issue of privacy and governmental secrecy? Where is the line? Where does our right to free speech end and national security begin? Our culture is splintered and WikiLeaks proves this. Here are two passionate examples of the opposing views:
Freedom of speech is evolving. Core, shared values are crumbling. The question now is: do we shut down technology and those who aim to use it as a way to give America a window into the operations of those we employ as officers OR do we change the ways of the past and enter a new day where we can not escape the light?
For those fearing for our national security, there is no evidence that WikiLeaks has put us or anyone at risk. However, that theory does not seem unfounded.
For those who wait for the world to be transparent, I say you will be waiting a long time.
For those who want to keep opening the closed doors and telling the people about questionable behaviors of those we ask to represent us, I wish they had better character so I could rest assured they might know where to draw a line. I want someone to police the world's police (The USA), however. For now, WikiLeaks is a check and balance for this country, something we supposedly believe in. They make me nervous but I am glad for their right to speak.
Sociologically speaking, I want to ask why it is that we are so focused on shooting the messenger and trying so hard to ignore the message. Oh, wait. I know the answer to this. Our government has been using this same physiological game on us for years. We learned it from them. Bravo.
(Having revealed my liberal leanings, I should really go now to make this blog private!)
What does the father of the atomic bomb think about secrecy? You may want to know, he was against it:
Speeches: J. Robert Oppenheimer on government secrecy (0:36)
J. Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the atomic bomb was an expert in quantum theory and nuclear physics. He was enlisted into the atomic weapons program, which was later expanded. Oppenheimer was asked to establish a new, secret laboratory.
