Isn't there a slight irony there... (in the use of the word destroy).
If that is their aim I don't think Wikileaks can really take the moral high ground over the recently released intelligence document concerning them ;)
something as intangible as "the truth."
Possibly truth was an unfortunate choice of word. "Objective" was the key part i meant to get across.
it's a job for news organizations and journalists (some of whom might be supporters or volunteers of wikileaks) to analyze and present this released information objectively.
Someone has to make the conscious effort to leak to WikiLeaks. Those people leak because they find the leaked material odious. WikiLeaks only gets the negative stuff, because happy employees don't leak the positive stuff.
I disagree in the strongest way; they can and should, in my view, be entirely neutral/objective in how they release information.
Im interested in how it is arguable they should be allowed to put their opinion or spin onto a release and it be considered ok?
But they're not. They don't publish everything they get. They have an agenda. And they don't seem to have publication guidelines, which even YouTube (and every other quasi-anonymous publisher) has. In addition, everything they publish is supposed to be against the wishes of some national government somewhere.
Nope. Once they gave up neutrality, they're not a publishing channel. They're a political cause masquerading as a public service.
So... political causes don't get free speech anymore? What United States is it that I'm living in, where political causes can be censored?
Free speech is first and foremost political free speech. You have a right (and obligation) to assemble and speak on matters of public policy.
But you don't have a right to say just anything. Obviously if you decided to "out" all the spies in Bulgaria and that resulted in dozens of deaths? A crime has been committed.
I absolutely support political organizations and their right to speak out. But that's not a blank check.
So I agree that there are limitations to be placed on free speech, as the Supreme Court agrees, but in Wikileak's case people are trying to silence information that is legal by the court's judgment. And I don't think the CIA should be above the law, although it seems to disagree.
As a contrarian, my concern is that this issue is being painted with way too broad of a brush. There are limits from a U.S. constitution standpoint for free speech. There are also practical limits as to how useful to the global public an organization can be if it has an agenda and a megaphone for disseminating secrets. Lots of room for third-party players to screw with public opinion.
As a libertarian, however, I think these guys are doing the work of the angels and I support anything that levels the playing field between the individual and the state. Rock on.
I just don't think everybody involved has thought it through completely, though. Lots of sloganeering and simplistic arguments going on. And that keeps nagging at me. I get this feeling that we are missing something important.
On the other hand, here's something they did publish: a leak of their own donor list. http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/46864/. I see that as pretty good evidence of their integrity.
http://blog.chaosradio.ccc.de/index.php/2009/08/24/cr149-wik... (if you understand spoken German, that is)