I make this prediction now to see if it will come true in the future. I predict that WikiLeaks would be banned by the US government or at least regulated (which is just a euphemism of various kinds of banning).
George Carlin said, "you have no rights, all you have are privileges, a temporary bill of privileges, that the government can take at any time when it becomes convenient". And I entirely agree with him on this. Throughout United States history the Bill of Rights was used as a way to make people think they have rights. But at any time it became convenient for the United States government to ignore its Bill of Rights for its own convenience it gladly did it.
WikiLeaks is making the United States government really angry. But they cannot ban it. Because that would violate the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
I wrote a post about what freedom of speech is and what it is not, back here. WikiLeaks is most certainly free speech. It does not even matter what it says. Even if it purely lies on every single statement it says about the United States government it is still free speech. Lying is free speech.
The United States and other countries are not very happy with WikiLeaks. Therefore, they would have a very big incentive to terminate it or control it.
And if the US does ban it, they will not say they are suppressing free speech. Oh no, fascists never call themselves fascists. They will never admit that they are destroying free speech. They will approach it in a different manner. They will claim it "damages the security of this country". They will claim it, "harms the economy of this country". They will claim it, "incites people to violence against the government". Do not worry, the United States will find excuses to suppress it. Because that is what fascists do. They always pretend that they are defending you.
The United States might also claim that by banning WikiLeaks they are "defending the freedom of the people". But of course that would be non-sense because the biggest threat to freedom, and the violator of the freedom of the people, is the United States. More so than any terrorist group that attacked the country.
David Friedman made a good point on his blog about unregulated encryption. He said that unregulated encryption is the modern day equivalent of the second amendment. The second amendment is not very useful today as it was back in 1776 (though I do very strongly support it, it is my favorite amendment, and even more) because the government has more powerful weapons. I do believe that citizens should own military weapons as well, to be able to rise a militia in case of a revolution, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" - Thomas Jefferson. But that is a whole different discussion. We are now talking about unregulated encryption. In modern ages having unregulated encryption gives the citizens a weapon against the government. And that is why it is a modern day equivalent of the second amendment.
In the same manner I believe that unregulated free speech against the government is a form of the second amendment. The goal of such speech is to fight against the tyranny in government. In fact, it is probably even more important than a second amendment on hand guns. Thus, for me defending WikiLeaks is not only a matter of free speech, but it is also a matter of defending the modern cyber version of the second amendment.
Now the United States government is going to say that WikiLeaks lies. Maybe it does, maybe it does not, I do not know. I do not follow it so I cannot possibly have any reasonable opinion on it. But the problem with this criticism is that the United States lies to its citizens always. Not just the United States, but all governments lie to its citizens. Howard Zinn, said it nicely when he said that all government lie, and they need to lie, otherwise they would not last very long, here.
Judging how the United States government reacts to WikiLeaks is a sign that they get at least some stuff right. The US was not this angry against the 911 truth movement. Because it is not true. And most people do not buy it anyway. But with WikiLeaks there is a different reaction. Which makes me think that they get some stuff right. Which makes the US really angry. It attacks their "national security". Do not forget that "national security" refers to their security. Not your security. What is security for them does not need to be security for you. When they claim that they are defending national security by banning WikiLeaks they are not defending your "national security", but their own.
The sad thing is that most people are probably against WikiLeaks. Sadly people are not very strong when it comes to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is easy to defend when it comes to trivial things. Like reading People Magazine. Or watching porn online. That is as far as what most people go to support freedom of speech. People forget the true purpose of freedom of speech. And that is to fight tyranny. Porn is great. But what is fundamental is the fight against tyranny. This is the entire point of freedom of speech.
I also predict that conservatives and Republicans, Democrats too, will be opposed to WikiLeaks and want to get it banned or regulated. This will just reveal to you how conservative the so-called conservatives really are. Is Sarah Palin in favor of entire unregulated content of WikiLeaks? I doubt it. Is Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter in favor of entire unregulated content of WikiLeaks? I doubt it. If they are, then wow, I am surprised.
There will be a few people who will defend WikiLeaks. But those will be a few liberals who actually do care about freedom of speech, though most liberals are probably too cowardly to defend it (as I am predicting). And even fewer conservatives who commit themselves to what conservatism is supposed to mean.
My final prediction is that WikiLeaks will sooner or later get banned or regulated by the government. It has to. From everything in the past that has happened my best possible prediction is that there will be laws passed on WikiLeaks.
If it does not get banned or regulated then I would be really truly surprised. Maybe somehow the Constitution can magically prevent this from happening. If it does not happen, then I would really be in complete shock.
The last thing that I want to address is that some people would say that something like WikiLeaks can lead to riots and protests. My question is, so what? Why are riots and protest bad? People seeing the evil in their government, why is that a bad thing? That is the spirit of freedom. And if it leads to more crime or something like that, amidst the riots, then so be it. That is what freedom of speech is all about. Give me liberty or give me death. If it means that protests and crime breaks out if this information is released then so be it. We must fully defend this freedom.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
> Because that would violate the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
ReplyDeleteI think you left out the most relevant part of that amendment: "...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."
> ...the United States government is going to say that WikiLeaks lies. Maybe it does, maybe it does not, I do not know.
Wikileaks can not lie (at least not deliberately, which I believe is a precondition to lying, otherwise it's just a mistake), because it does not say anything in their own voice. They are simply reprinting what has already been said in previously written documents. No one, including the US, has made the claim that what they are putting out there is fabricated lies.
"I think you left out the most relevant part of that amendment: ...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.":
ReplyDeleteYes, of course, but when I said "prohibiting free speech", I meant all of that. It was just too long to write.
"Wikileaks can not lie (at least not deliberately, which I believe is a precondition to lying, otherwise it's just a mistake), because it does not say anything in their own voice. They are simply reprinting what has already been said in previously written documents. No one, including the US, has made the claim that what they are putting out there is fabricated lies.":
Okay, thank you for that correction. You can see how little I know about WikiLeaks. In that case, I guess we can say that WikiLeaks is ever more important.
Frankly I think this is a boon to America. America is not portrayed negatively here. Rather they seem to be the most benign of many more bloodthirsty actors. In any case, they won't ban it, they will just increase security protocols.
ReplyDelete"Frankly I think this is a boon to America.":
ReplyDeleteI do not like to equate America and the United States. For me America is an idea, while the United States, well you can figure it out.
What you said makes no sense. If the United States benefitted from WikiLeaks they would not be angry about it.
"Rather they seem to be the most benign of many more bloodthirsty actors.":
The lesser of evils is still evil. And besides I doubt it if this is true. If you add up the death counts the US would be near the top of the list.
"In any case, they won't ban it, they will just increase security protocols.":
How do you know they will not ban it?
Viva wiki. but i am afraid you are right.
ReplyDeleteTo me, Baruch Spinoza ("I am the greatest human that exists") comes across as been highly knowledgable, educated and wise but not so much as perhaps he would like us to believe. Unfortunately, in my opinion, his arguments in favour of Wikileak's "spilling the beans" are extremely naive, immature and incredibly irresponsible - the sort of comments that earn big "brownie points" in university debating societies.
ReplyDeleteIf he were in government (or maybe he is) - would he not lie if he thought it protected his country's national security? If he found his grandmother having sex with the milkman would he go immediately blabbing to grandad because it was the "truth" and maybe even posting it on the internet? Maybe he would - but then that would perhaps be totally irresponsible, immature and mean - unless of course he hated both his grandparents that much!!
Of course the US - and all other governments are going to lie when they think it appropriate - that is no big surprise - only a silly child would expect otherwise. Maybe the order of the day should be - "Grow up!!"
Do not parents lie to their children about things which are either totally untrue (Santa Claus, tooth fairies etc) and things about which there is not a shred of scientific evidence (Gods, angels, heaven, hell etc)???
Whatever the US government has got wrong in the past - and will in the future - has been and will be be preferable to the alternatives that were / are on offer, e.g. Kaiser Bill, Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, North Korea, Iran, Islamic extremism etc to name but a few (unless of course you happen to be on the opposing side).
Ironically, the Iranian leader believes that the US government is behind these "leaks". Now there is a different slant on the whole business i.e. somebody not believing the "truth"! Mmmmm.
Big Al...I would hardly call spilling the beans about ever increasing corruption the same as blabbing to grandad about grandma having sex with the milkman. It begs questions...what's a milkman? and if grandma is having sex at her age, grats
ReplyDeleteAh, it seems the sheep have discovered your blog and have come here to bleet in the comments section.
ReplyDeleteIn reply to txrivergirl- Thanks for that. I just typed "milkman+US" in Google and up came a whole bunch of interesting stuff.
ReplyDeleteBut heh - I do apologize for using an anachronism. We used to have men (persons) who delivered bottles of milk door-to-door in UK for many years (before supermarkets came along) - and they used to get up to all kinds of mischief!
But see southmountaincremery.com they still deliver milk in parts of the US.
As for grandma - the less said the better..... especially to granddad!!!
To Puzzled:
ReplyDeleteIt was very nice to read your constructive comment. Thanks.
"To me, Baruch Spinoza comes across as been highly knowledgable, educated and wise but not so much as perhaps he would like us to believe.":
ReplyDeleteWell, thank you, you forget to mention I also have a large hard penis.
"his arguments in favour of Wikileak's "spilling the beans" are extremely naive, immature and incredibly irresponsible - the sort of comments that earn big brownie points in university debating societies.":
That could be true. But you do not demonstrate why this is so. All you do is give an example about my grandma and how she sleeps around with men. How does any of these have anything to do with what I am saying.
And by the way, I once asked my grandma if she ever tried 69. She told me that 55 is the most sailors she can screw in one night.
"would he not lie if he thought it protected his country's national security?":
I addressed all these points already and you repeat the same excuses that statists and anti-free speech people use. I said that "national security" is a non-sense term. What can be national security is security for the state not the people. If I knew that that US is going to set up extermination camps for its citizens then by releasing this secret information I am attacking the national security of the US state. But I am defending the people.
"and all other governments are going to lie when they think it appropriate.":
Not just when "appropriate". But all the time. They lie all the time. Election day is just one big lie session.
"Do not parents lie to their children about things which are either totally untrue and things about which there is not a shred of scientific evidence?":
Yes. And I consider this to be extremely evil. Children must find their own path in life, and parents only responsiblity is to aid them. But parents cannot tell them what to believe. If that is what you did to your kids. Then I consider you a bad parent.
"Whatever the US government has got wrong in the past - and will in the future - has been and will be be preferable to the alternatives that were / are on offer.":
The alternatives that you listed are not the only possibilities. There is another possibility. And that is a path to free markets, freedom, and peace. This, as I see with all my reason, is more preferrable than any other alternative.
"Ah, it seems the sheep have discovered your blog and have come here to bleet in the comments section.":
UK and Europe in general are big time statists. At least in the US if you tell some conservative that he recieves social security and Medicare he would confess his dependency on the government but he would do so in some shame. In the UK and most other European countries you will not see this shame, they will proudly say that this is how it needs to be.
Big Al, I didn't engage with you for a reason. I can argue with someone who makes real points. I cannot argue with someone who says little more than "I love my daddy The Government and you shouldn't ever say anything bad about it - or repeat bad things it says. I cannot feel safe unless men with guns shut you up, and other men with guns storm around the world murdering and torturing - and I can't abide the thought that people knowing what we do might lead to those ignorant, pesky people trying to object to what their betters do." But since you asked, in fact, the government claims to represent us. They steal our money to produce their reports, and claim to do it in our interest. They claim to work for us. If an employee threatened to kill me for finding out what he did, I'd fire him in a second.
ReplyDeleteThanks again for your very enlightening and constructive comments.
ReplyDeleteI am very sorry if I gave the impression that I can find no fault in anything that the US / UK / UN / West are doing / have done in the world. In my clumsy way I was merely attempting to add a little balance and a few counter-arguments to those already expressed by (I am certain) others far more eloquent and word(l)y than myself.
On the other hand I do not altogether believe that my apparently clumsy and "down to earth" analogy of "grandma's adultery" was so far off the mark. We all have our loyalties (rightly or wrongly) for whatever reason. Don’t you?
I happen to be an atheist - but I love people (in general) whilst absolutely hating some others (regardless of race, colour and religion). That to some people would seem like a contradiction.
My point was / is - that it is surely narrow-minded and totally irresponsible to judge others based purely on our own ideas of right or wrong to the extent of not been able to see any good at all in what they are trying to achieve.
No doubt Adolf Hitler had what he thought was a perfectly good excuse for exterminating 6 million Jews and many others. At that time – were Roosevelt and Churchill lying to their countries when they said we should fight Germany to overcome tyranny there? I have great respect for America and Britain for what was achieved at that time – but that does not mean I agree with everything they did / do - any more than I agree with the existence of Israel.
But sometimes we have to face the realities of life. The US is not going to give back its territory to the Indians anytime soon either (even though they gave back Germany and Japan after defeating and totally occupying those countries - thus setting a precedence).
However, the other extreme would be seem to me to be equally irresponsible. Unfortunately, we have seen some pretty horrific examples of extreme responses in recent times - in particular the reaction to 9/11 which has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents. We did not need Wikileaks to tell us that. Many civilians are dying in the fight against the Taliban. But in both of these cases we never seem to hear from Wikileaks about the numbers of atrocities committed by the “other side”.
Does anybody know or even care - how many "innocent" lives were lost on all sides during WWII?
I would just really like to know if (and how) Baruch Spinoza or yourself would do any better if you “ruled the world”. Would you be absolutely open and honest about absolutely everything? I think NOT!
To Baruch Spinoza: Thank you for reading and commenting to my responses to your blog.
ReplyDelete"Well, thank you, you forget to mention I also have a large hard penis".
What? You have two penises - one tiny and the other large and hard? One of these is surely a lie!! Better not let WikiLeaks hear about it!
"That could be true. But you do not demonstrate why this is so. All you do is give an example about my grandma and how she sleeps around with men. How does any of these have anything to do with what I am saying".
I think my answer to Puzzled will explain that.
"And by the way, I once asked my grandma if she ever tried 69. She told me that 55 is the most sailors she can screw in one night".
Now now. You wouldn't be actually lying about this would you? Oh I get it - using humour as a way of getting out of an embarrassing situation? i.e. having a promiscuous granny! But I like it! It seems you liked my analogy a lot more than did Puzzled.
"I addressed all these points already and you repeat the same excuses that statists and anti-free speech people use". I said that "national security" is a non-sense term. What can be national security is security for the state not the people”.
I did not mean to be so inattentive. It is just difficult to keep up with you!
Does that not also include the freedom to lie if I believe (rightly or wrongly) that national / state security is at risk if I speak the truth and nothing but the truth at ALL times. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Sounds much better on TV than "Yes she sucked my cock". "Watch my lips - there will be no NEW taxes" sounds better than "We are increasing existing taxes". I am sure even you would agree.
“If I knew that that US is going to set up extermination camps for its citizens then by releasing this secret information I am attacking the national security of the US state”.
That is very noble of you and I am sure most people would agree with that. But haven’t you heard? - the US government is composed of people who used to say that they believed the sorts of things and principles that you are advocating! And then they were elected into power and suddenly they saw the world through entirely different eyes when the circumstances changed. Barack Obama is surely one of those people. He is having severe difficulty in putting into practise what he preached before he was elected. Sooner or later someone is going to call him a liar if they have not done so already.
“But I am defending the people”
Again - very noble of you. But as somebody (nearly) once said “You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time – but you will never fool all of the people all of the time”. In other words you are going to make enemies and be criticised by some people at some time whether you are absolutely truthful or not. Sorry! I admire you honesty but I am not sure you would make a very good diplomat – and the world needs good diplomats.
“Yes. And I consider this to be extremely evil”. An opinion very similar to that of Richard Dawkins – one of my heroes. However I do not believe that parents are necessarily evil if they sincerely believe what they are saying is true. It is knowing that something is wrong and harmful and preaching that that is the problem – but there is the “rub” – what is wrong and what is harmless? If I choose to believe that there is a teapot orbiting the sun that is pretty harmless. If I believe that God(?) is on always on my side – that can be pretty dangerous.
“Children must find their own path in life, and parents only responsibility is to aid them. But parents cannot tell them what to believe. If that is what you did to your kids. Then I consider you a bad parent”.
In principle I agree with this – but the devil is in the detail – it sounds altogether subjective and open wide to criticicism.
To be continued.
To Baruch Spinoza (Continued):
ReplyDeleteSorry I posted that twice above - I am new to this and I had a message saying that it had not been sent.
You wrote:
“The alternatives that you listed are not the only possibilities. There is another possibility. And that is a path to free markets, freedom, and peace. This, as I see with all my reason, is more preferable than any other alternative”.
Very good – again in principle – but the big question will always be – whose free market / freedom / peace? Unfortunately, all too often might is right whether we like it or not.
“UK and Europe in general are big time statists. At least in the US if you tell some conservative that he receives social security and Medicare he would confess his dependency on the government but he would do so in some shame. In the UK and most other European countries you will not see this shame, they will proudly say that this is how it needs to be”.
I am not ashamed to believe that (as a Brit - not as a Communist or a Socialist) that any country that cannot provide public health care for its people cannot truly call itself a caring nation. If the US were to provide “free” health care (for which everyone paid National Insurance) it does not mean that they would be turning Communist (that is ridiculous). It would be organized to suit US / capitalistic / nationalistic circumstances. For the people!
I thoroughly enjoyed reading and replying to your blog. Thanks again.
"I think my answer to Puzzled will explain that.":
ReplyDeleteIt did not explain it for me. You missed what I said about the function of something like WikiLeaks. If you have a coercive monopoloy of power and violence (the state) then you can be assured that it will act in its interest and the expansion of more power. Like the US. In that case the function of stuff like WikiLeaks is extremely important in exposing the state for what it is. Because you cannot trust the state to expose itself.
"the US government is composed of people who used to say that they believed the sorts of things and principles that you are advocating.":
There are very few people that I know of that actually believe in the principles that I stand for. The only person I can think of is Ron Paul. There have been situations when the House voted 434 (yes) and 1 (no), something like that, the 1 no was from Ron Paul. So I do not agree with what you said. Very few people in the government actually agree with what I stand for.
"Barack Obama is surely one of those people. He is having severe difficulty in putting into practise what he preached before he was elected.":
What is more likely? That a politician actually believes strongly in what he believes. Or that he said stuff that made other people happy to vote for him?
"And the world needs good diplomats.":
The world needs just as much diplomats as it needs more politicians and nuclear weapons.
"Richard Dawkins – one of my heroes":
Hitchens pwns Dawkins.
"Very good – again in principle – but the big question will always be – whose free market / freedom / peace? Unfortunately, all too often might is right whether we like it or not.":
I am not sure what the second sentence has to do with the first one. And what does it mean to say "whose"? I support it for all people, I would love to see these ideas everywhere.
"I am not ashamed to believe that any country that cannot provide public health care for its people cannot truly call itself a caring nation.":
Well that illustrates my point. People in Europe, in general, think it is great to be strongly or entirely dependent on the state. In the US there is at least some opposition to this.
"I would just really like to know if (and how) Baruch Spinoza or yourself would do any better if you “ruled the world”. Would you be absolutely open and honest about absolutely everything? I think NOT!":
ReplyDeleteI am not trying to rule anything. That would violate my principles. I want to move to as much decentralization of power as much as possible. So I do not want to be a ruler. Nor do I want anyone else to be a ruler.
I think Baruch answered most of your substantive points well, and I have little to add. As far as what I would do if I "ruled the world" I'd do precisely what our current leaders should have done long ago - resign.
ReplyDeleteBut, since you brought it up, as you mention, Hitler thought that what he was doing was right, just as our leaders think that what they do is right - and both kill in the name of some of their citizens. Would you be equally outraged at people informing the German people what is being done in their name?
To "Puzzled" and "Baruch Spinoza".
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading both of your blogs.
A couple of conclusions I have arrived at from what you have written are:
1) That you do not want any individual or state to have any power or control whatsoever because "power corrupts". (This would seem to beg the questions - What powers will be needed to put this into practice? What about law enforcement? What about human rights / civil liberties / drugs / medicines / education / police / military / defence etc etc etc?? What you are advocating would seem to me to be total anarchy and could surely only be brought about in the short term by bloody revolution. Perhaps in the much longer term a more gradual, evolutionary, process will bring about some of the more positive changes you would like.
To some extent, what we have seen in recent years in Europe has been a move away from centralised governments and towards more and more break-away states. This has proved to be a very bloody process in most case - nearly as bloody as the process that the same states went through whilst they were being centralised.
Suppose we in the West did nothing about the Taliban and other Islamic Fundamentalists for example? They would soon be taking over Europe and the US. What is happening already (and I am not anti-anybody - until they attack me) is that these fundamentalists are taking advantage of our "freedom of speech" laws to spread their doctrines and when (and NOT if) they do so they will abolish ALL freedom of speech. I have lived in the Middle East for 4 years and I know that their intention is nothing short of TOTAL world domination. Your (and Wikileaks) unlimited / unrestrained / in my view totally irresponsible "freedom of speech" is a gift to them (which they see as our weakness) and not the ideological panacea to the world's problems that you both seem to imagine.
On this planet there are many different worlds and I believe it is better to live in the real one and not some imaginary ideological Utopia with its illusionary benefits.
Where we are in the West today – in terms of freedom of speech / civil liberties etc (with all the many imperfections) is the result of two thousand years of progressive democratic (and scientific) development and, latterly, the Enlightenment. But what is lacking and I will say it again – is a sense of tactfulness, responsibility and self-restraint. All too often we hear vulgarity and disrespect being used in the name of freedom of speech.
Somebody once said “I do not like what was said - but I will fight to the death for his right to say it!”. Very noble. Very high sounding – but totally impracticable, naive and unrealistic in many instances.
Is Julian Assange a hero or a villain? Why – both at the same time of course – depending on one’s own standpoint. Is he being democratic? Far from it – democracy is all about people being allowed to express their opinion about something they believe. What he is doing is hanging-out other people’s “dirty washing” in public – not his own! Is the world going to be a better place after all this “truth” has been revealed? Not one bit. Just further divided - in my humble opinion
2) You want to see absolute honesty and transparency in every individual and in the media and no government (there is no government in Somalia – I do not imagine either of you will be moving there any time soon). It comes back again to the principles of decorum, tactfulness, and yes that awful diplomacy.
I do not expect that anything I have said will make any difference to the attitudes already stated so clearly.
"I do not expect that anything I have said will make any difference to the attitudes already stated so clearly.":
ReplyDeleteNo. I heard all of those points plenty of time already. Everything you said I have heard many times, and had thoughts about myself. So it is just repetition of what I have been hearing for some time now.
I will probably make a long post response to your points, maybe that will clear up confusion that you have.