Freedom of Expression or Freedom of Invasion?
From hieroglyphics, the printing press, to the computer, the concept of communication has been an integral part of society in order to express and spread ideas. With the vast advancements in technology and social media tools, communication has evolved into a far more immediate, efficient method for greater involvement in activities locally and globally. Clay Shirky, in “The Political Power of Social Media: Technology, the Public Sphere, and Political Change,” outlines how to use these relatively new modes of interaction as a political force. He introduces the instrumental approach, where anti-censorship and “western” websites are the primary forces that are encouraged, and the environmental, where local conversations among the residents of the country are more highly emphasized. Shirky argues that starting local conversations within people is far more effective in the long run in order to make true change and create a public sphere. As a part of his solutions, he presses for the reordering of priorities where freedom of expression socially and personally is at the top. Grounding this idea further, he announced a difficult, yet crucial step, which incorporated engagement between the government and the private companies that are “[…] used most for political speech, conversation, and coordination” (Shirky 42). However, a controversial social media tool that he had listed falls under scrutiny: WikiLeaks. Though WikiLeaks allows for the space for people to post confidential, often controversial aspects of media and the government in order to counter corruption, it wavers on the idea that it may be more an invasion of privacy than the freedom of speech that Shirky emphasized and stressed throughout his writings. The points made in Shirky’s writing are essential to expanding and building the public sphere as well as combating repressive and democratic regimes. …show more content…
However, his inclusion of WikiLeaks in his list of websites that promote freedom of expression misrepresents his position. WikiLeaks is, according to their main website, “a multi-national organization and associated library.” In other words, it publicizes censored or restricted information for the public. Though the website is for the right cause to counteract corruption and spying, the methods to obtaining the information are often controversial as they are acquired through hacking personal social media tools. For example, Sarah Palin’s personal email was hacked and released on WikiLeaks before the 2008 election in September when she was running as John McCain’s vice president. The emails proved to be harmless with no incriminating evidence, but were still released. A similar incident is taking place again in this 2016 election with nominee Hillary Clinton, bringing the controversial and invasive nature of WikiLeaks back to light. A group of emails from the Democratic National Convention was released after an anonymous hacker gained unauthorized access. The problem lies in the hypocritical nature of the website that claims to be transparent, but is in truth veiled in secrecy on how the information was obtained. According to “Can We Trust Julian Assange and WikiLeaks,” a New York Times article, the information leaked was also shown to have personal information such as “[…] social security numbers and credit card data of private individuals, information that served no public interest.” This type of publication of private and personal information is the main reason why WikiLeaks cannot be considered a tool of freedom of expression. Though it does help bring to light certain aspects that the government, agencies, or other corporations may be keeping in secret out of corruption, there is often a reason why certain ideas were kept out of the public. Freedom of expression does not allow for stating anything with no expense, referencing to the reason behind having defamation laws that does not allow slander or libel. Freedom of expression should not be allowed if it obstructs anyone’s rights, especially, in this case, privacy. WikiLeaks is controversial in nature, and cannot be considered as part of freedom of speech, but another question lies in whether it could be comparable to the other social media that Shirky grouped together. He listed “services based in the United States, such as Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, and YouTube, and those based overseas, such as QQ (a Chinese instant messaging service), WikiLeaks (a repository of leaked documents whose servers are in Sweden), Tuenti (a Spanish social network), and Naver (a Korean one)” (Shirky 41). YouTube, for example, consists of posting, sharing, or
From hieroglyphics, the printing press, to the computer, the concept of communication has been an integral part of society in order to express and spread ideas. With the vast advancements in technology and social media tools, communication has evolved into a far more immediate, efficient method for greater involvement in activities locally and globally. Clay Shirky, in “The Political Power of Social Media: Technology, the Public Sphere, and Political Change,” outlines how to use these relatively new modes of interaction as a political force. He introduces the instrumental approach, where anti-censorship and “western” websites are the primary forces that are encouraged, and the environmental, where local conversations among the residents of the country are more highly emphasized. Shirky argues that starting local conversations within people is far more effective in the long run in order to make true change and create a public sphere. As a part of his solutions, he presses for the reordering of priorities where freedom of expression socially and personally is at the top. Grounding this idea further, he announced a difficult, yet crucial step, which incorporated engagement between the government and the private companies that are “[…] used most for political speech, conversation, and coordination” (Shirky 42). However, a controversial social media tool that he had listed falls under scrutiny: WikiLeaks. Though WikiLeaks allows for the space for people to post confidential, often controversial aspects of media and the government in order to counter corruption, it wavers on the idea that it may be more an invasion of privacy than the freedom of speech that Shirky emphasized and stressed throughout his writings. The points made in Shirky’s writing are essential to expanding and building the public sphere as well as combating repressive and democratic regimes. …show more content…
However, his inclusion of WikiLeaks in his list of websites that promote freedom of expression misrepresents his position. WikiLeaks is, according to their main website, “a multi-national organization and associated library.” In other words, it publicizes censored or restricted information for the public. Though the website is for the right cause to counteract corruption and spying, the methods to obtaining the information are often controversial as they are acquired through hacking personal social media tools. For example, Sarah Palin’s personal email was hacked and released on WikiLeaks before the 2008 election in September when she was running as John McCain’s vice president. The emails proved to be harmless with no incriminating evidence, but were still released. A similar incident is taking place again in this 2016 election with nominee Hillary Clinton, bringing the controversial and invasive nature of WikiLeaks back to light. A group of emails from the Democratic National Convention was released after an anonymous hacker gained unauthorized access. The problem lies in the hypocritical nature of the website that claims to be transparent, but is in truth veiled in secrecy on how the information was obtained. According to “Can We Trust Julian Assange and WikiLeaks,” a New York Times article, the information leaked was also shown to have personal information such as “[…] social security numbers and credit card data of private individuals, information that served no public interest.” This type of publication of private and personal information is the main reason why WikiLeaks cannot be considered a tool of freedom of expression. Though it does help bring to light certain aspects that the government, agencies, or other corporations may be keeping in secret out of corruption, there is often a reason why certain ideas were kept out of the public. Freedom of expression does not allow for stating anything with no expense, referencing to the reason behind having defamation laws that does not allow slander or libel. Freedom of expression should not be allowed if it obstructs anyone’s rights, especially, in this case, privacy. WikiLeaks is controversial in nature, and cannot be considered as part of freedom of speech, but another question lies in whether it could be comparable to the other social media that Shirky grouped together. He listed “services based in the United States, such as Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, and YouTube, and those based overseas, such as QQ (a Chinese instant messaging service), WikiLeaks (a repository of leaked documents whose servers are in Sweden), Tuenti (a Spanish social network), and Naver (a Korean one)” (Shirky 41). YouTube, for example, consists of posting, sharing, or