Is it terrible that I didn't care? Does my lack of interest signify that the dark forces of apathy, having gained a foothold in the American soul, are stepping up their campaign and routing the synaptic defenses which keep our limbic systems plugged into the national character? When the world crumbles down around my ears, will its fall echo in the mournful tenor voice of Ralston Hill recounting General Washington's desperate plea: "Is anybody there? Does anybody care?"
So I may have heard some things about wikileaks--if there is an advantage to existing in a relative state of friendlessness other than nobody wanting to borrow ones shoes, it is surely the opportunity one has to listen quietly to what those around her are saying. Here is what I think I know (having avoided reading a single word on the subject) about wikileaks as compiled from the ambient buzzing of humanity on cigarette breaks outside of Faculty Hall, in line at the grocery store, and flipping through radio-stations in search of that really pretty song about the guy who (figuratively) collects women's hearts in a jar:
It would seem that some person or persons have designated a Wikipedia-like web space for users to publish secrets of governments, corporations, and high-profile individuals. The U.S. Federal Government--abhorring unchecked gossip about itself--attempted to shut down the site, curtailing free expression in the name of national security, but was ultimately forced to give up fruitless efforts to legally eradicate the extensively mirrored site
Don't get me wrong, free expression is a huge deal to me. It is the adamantium framework around which all of my strongest beliefs are articulated, but seriously--what do people expect? Until such time as the Angel of The Lord grabs his trumpet and cues up the Armageddon orchestra (featuring the musical stylings of the Continental Congress) it will be Adlai Stevenson's voice that echos in my mind, saying "Your public servants serve you right; indeed, often they serve you better than your apathy and indifference deserve."
The last activist political demonstration in which I took part occurred on a strip of grace officially designated as Murray State's "free speech zone"--for those who have been happily living in caves since Jimmy Carter left office, a free speech zone is a place where it isn't illegal for Americans to exercise their fundamental constitutionally guaranteed right to free expression, you know, the one which was inviolable before the second Bush administration took power but eviscerated well before the American people reelected the second Bush of their own free will. To say that I am deeply disturbed by this state of affairs wouldn't begin to cover it, but the first amendment has been functionally dead for years, and as such I fail to see how the desecration of her corpse rates front page news.
That being said, it's time to find out if what I've absorbed through osmosis bears any resemblance to the generally accepted truth, and more specifically, if wikileaks has ultimately been silenced by the home of the free and the brave (thus vindicating my cynicism), or if the Bill of Rights has uncharacteristically triumphed over the efforts of those who are charged with administering its protections.
My work here is made blessedly simple by the fact that wikileaks has been a relatively hot news item, because of this I can skip most of the traditional nonsense and move straight on to the good stuff. First (and presumably last) stop: The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/). Phase two (typing "wikileaks" in the site's search-bar) leads me to an article ( http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/w/wikileaks/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=wikileaks&st=cse) which provides an excellent overview of the wiki-scandal to date. As it turns out, most of my information was relatively accurate, but incomplete. This plot has been thickened by rape charges against wikileaks' founder, criminal investigations launched by the U.S. government, internal squabbling among wikileaks operators, and debilitating cyber-attacks against organizations deemed unfriendly to wikileaks and free information in general.
My cynicism is well founded; there was a court decision to shut down the website, and that decision was reversed not out of deference to free speech, but out of the untenability of enforcing it. Unable to silence the site directly, the federal government is investigating its founder in an attempt to silence it indirectly. I'm not blind to the reality that some information is secret for good reason, that certain knowledge falling into the wrong hands could endanger individuals or even nations--but as a people, we cannot afford to concern ourselves with the government's right to secrecy when the government has failed to concern itself with the people's right to free expression. It is reasonable for informed and free people to make concessions under circumstances which warrant them, but it is madness for people who have been forced to concede those freedoms which ensure their ability to inform one another to do the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment