Why Censorship is not the Best Option When it comes to Whistleblowers Essay

Why Censorship is not the Best Option When it comes to Whistleblowers like Wikileaks and why Citizens should not have access to all Information - Essay Example Wikileaks also promised to divulge important information about certain big companies in the United States and abroad. The documents leaked to the press by Wikileaks caused a lot of concerns among nations that many world leaders wanted to have the founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, arrested (Entous and Perez). While world leaders cried foul, many people around the world commended Wikileaks for informing the public regarding what governments and big corporations are doing. Many people believe that the public has the right to know what their leaders are doing and that Wikileaks must be allowed to continue providing the public with critical information without being censored (Lang). While some people see Wikileaks as a hero, others feel that the company has breached the bounds of decency and ethics for divulging damaging information without taking into considerations the consequences of its actions. Yet, despite the possible ethical breach on the part of Wikileaks, this does not mean that censorship of the press is the best solution to avert possible harm and prevent potentially embarrassing situations on the part of the government. There is no doubt that the right to information is very important but the question now is whether or not it is morally and politically correct for an organization like Wikileaks to spy on governments and big companies and divulge sensitive information to the public. In other words, to what extent should the public be kept informed about government transactions and when should the government be allowed to withhold information from its constituents. We have to understand that the public does not need to be a privy to all activities of the government and there are things that are better left unsaid to protect the people. Information is very powerful and it can make or unmake a company, a government, an organization or an individual. Since information is very powerful, there is a need to temper the sharing of information and use it only to promote the highest good (Thierer and Anderson). The right to be informed is very important so there is a need for people to be kept informed on the issues that affect them. In the case of Wikileaks, providing the general public with the right information is crucial so there is a need to scrutinize the kind of information that it gives to the general public. Note that certain types of information can cause a lot of damage and put the lives of people in danger. Potentially embarrassing leaks can lead to international tension and may lead to the breakdown of diplomatic ties of some nations. Allegations that the United States is selling nuclear arms to terrorists for instance are a very serious and it can create dangerous backlash. Publishing this kind of information without putting the information in the right context is very dangerous it can undermine the stability of certain nations. The idea that companies like Wikileaks can hack into the database of certain government offices a nd private companies is disturbing because any information that these companies generate can be used against the offices where the information came from. A clear example of this is what happened in Iraq when Wikileaks published sensitive Iraq war documents (BBC News). Note that Iraq had an inconclusive election in March of 2010 and the publication of the war documents added to the uneasiness in the area. According to Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, the war documents published by Wikileaks undermined the efforts of the Iraqis to form a strong government (BBC News). Although some political observers noted that the information published by Wikileaks did not seem to impress the majority of the people in Iraq (BBC News), there is