|
suzian, we just seem to be talking at cross purposes and I think I'll have to give up!
My previous post was specifically addressing two statements by you. In both cases, you seem to have turned what was said around backwards, again!
The first was:
"It's free speech that allows Flannagan to say his bit"
My point was that we do impose limits on speech, limits that we consider justifiable, and "free speech" really isn't a trump card. If Flanagan's speech amounted to, for instance, counselling the commission of a homicide, our societies have agreed that he should be charged with a crime. Ditto if he lied under oath, published false advertising, etc.
The second was:
"Which ideal of free speech apparently doesn't include Assange - who wasn't even saying what he thought, just repeating what others said. And which, of course, they wish they hadn't said in public. "
That one is simple. The things that Assange disclosed *were not said in public*.
I actually do think that diplomats and politicians should be able to say things in private. It's just that the cheesy things they have been disclosed as saying are hardly worthy of protection.
The really big thing here is that all the uproar about those cheesy things has served as a smokescreen for some actually hugely important things that WikiLeaks has disclosed, and that unquestionably should not be concealed from the public.
Even the Telegraph did report these facts:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/8082605
/Wikileaks-Civilians-gunned-down-at-checkpoints.html
"Full details of how US soldiers killed innocent Iraqi civilians at road checkpoints are revealed in the war logs published by Wikileaks."
and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack
"Wikileaks reveals video showing US air crew shooting down Iraqi civilians ... A secret video showing US air crew falsely claiming to have encountered a firefight in Baghdad and then laughing at the dead after launching an air strike that killed a dozen people, including two Iraqis working for Reuters news agency, was revealed by Wikileaks today."
(you can watch the video there ... well, the part that youtube didn't censor, I guess)
That's something I think we could have a little unanimous moral outrage about -- not the messenger, but the message, which is an atrocity, a war crime, a crime against humanity, a multiple murder, a fact, disclosed by WikiLeaks.
I wouldn't really care if it had been Adolph Hitler who disclosed that one.
edit - more of that video here - starting around 6:45 - with commentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20LkYvEZOZs
Murder, plain and simple. And ugly and foul. Committed by scum pigs.
|
|
Whoops, Janey. I'm sorry if I've turned what was said backward - again or otherwise. I don't try to go in for playing that sort of game intentionally.
That having been said, I stick with my main point - the internet has made transparency so much more possible, and shooting the messenger just doesn't wash.
As for politicians and diplomats being able to say things in private - of course they should. Just that it would be better if what they say in private has some resonance to what they say in public.
Sue x
|
