Well the Wikileaks commotion continues, and after long and careful thought, I have to admit that I don't have the slightest clue how I feel about the whole thing.
As a journalist, of course I support free speech. Free speech is one of the most fundamental building blocks to a democratic society, because without it, how can you discuss the very government that you are responsible for electing?
Further, the right to say things that others might find objectionable, for whatever reasons, provides the very impetus for advancement that has led us through the ages.
But I also recognize that, as with most things, even what is a 'right' isn't necessarily absolute.
The lack of absolute rights creates a wiggle room that can be uncomfortable for people like myself when things like the Wikileaks story comes up.
While I am certain the majority of you know the essentials of the situation, please bear with me while I briefly outline the topic for those who might not be aware.
Wikileaks.org is a website that was set up in Sweden to provide an on-line venue for 'whistle-blowers' to publish material that is conceivably damaging to business, political, or individual interests.
The idea is that, like the Watergate Affair presented by the anonymous Deep Throat which led to the fall of the Nixon presidency, there are people who have access to damaging information, and a moral desire for people to see this information, and Wikileaks will provide a venue for that to be done anonymously.
In the case most recent, Wikileaks has released 260,000 or so communications to and from U.S. embassies, consulates, and officials.
Of course, how diplomats talk about other countries, and the orders they get or information they are asked to collect about their host nations, is a realm as dark as night as far as published information goes.
While many would undoubtedly love to know what goes on behind the scenes at a meeting behind a Prime Minister and a President, that information is usually kept as top secret as it can be.
So this abrupt release of these diplomatic cables has created a huge firestorm in the international community as to the rights and wrongs of releasing that type of data publicly.
Predictably (and understandably) the United States has branded the release of these papers nothing short of 'criminal,' and are seeking ways to impede their distribution.
Other countries, many of whom have leaders or public figures specifically named in the cables, both as topics of conversation and sources of information themselves, have reacted to the release of the diplomatic cables in a far less severe manner.
For me, the one who believes in freedom of speech, the cables represent a dilemma to which I have a difficult time adjusting.
While on one hand, I support the free sharing of information, on the other hand I understand the overarching need for communication security in the diplomatic realm.
Let's just say that you are a diplomat in a developing country.
You are asked by your superiors to provide an analysis of various members of the government of your host country.
Thinking you are speaking in secrecy, you write that lad number one has the best interests of his country at heart, so any requests should play to that fact.
You say further that lad number two is a bit of a nutter, and that anything he says should be checked through lad number one before being accepted as the government's point of view.
Then imagine those very words see the light of the world, and all of the sudden you have a host country's number two man being referred to as crazy by an official member of your government's mission to that country.
It is sort of like when a member of Chrétien's entourage was overheard calling George Bush a bad name.
Do you remember how long and ugly that matter got?
This is why those Wikileaked documents bother me so. While I believe that the person who had them should have the right to publish them, I don't think that reasonably, they are something that should be published.
