Carol Forsloff--Journalists the world over proclaim their rights to cover news stories in a free atmosphere. They have been imprisoned, tortured, or killed for writing stories that angered one faction or another. In the meantime, what about those journalists that have covered Edward Snowden in the leaking of security documents? How does that impact journalism ethics and national security? The issues remain a topic of debate around the world, by journalists, governments and private citizens.Some writers, looking at the issue of national security vs free speech, maintain that America's Founding Fathers would look favorably on Edward Snowden for showing the possible overreach of government. In fact the Fourth Amendment provides: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Jefferson declared the value of the press under free speech, listing it as an essential in the building of a democratic government in America. He also believed in limited government. But how does that compare with the Snowden affair is a matter of debate both among scholars and the man on the street.
Sydney Morning Herald Columnist, Paul Sheehan, looks at the Snowden affair, the telling of secrets on America's intelligence with respect to surveying citizens through database collections, in the context of the problems facing the modern world. He cites Snowden's statement to the Washington Post, referencing national security issues, "We managed to survive greater threats in our history... than a few disorganised terrorist groups and rogue states without resorting to these sorts of programs." Yet the Washington Post rejected some of Snowden's leaks because it considered in balance that some of the information specifically risk PRISM, a major intelligence operation monitoring international communications.
The Washington Post also cites Facebook and Yahoo executives, as well as others, denying their companies knew and were involved in PRISM, and in doing The Post maintains that the numbers of these executives, and their statements, indicate they are sincere in their insistence they know nothing about the program.
While many complain that the government is now spying on them, Sheehan observes that all government agencies do not have the time to monitor all the activities of its citizens and to think so is irrational, something he refers to as "self-absorption."
The Snowden affair provokes many questions referencing free speech, the intention of the Constitution at the time it was framed vs modern facts and concerns, and the question regarding who is a journalist and what is the balance of the ethics to essentially not risk wantonly endangering others. It is a question writers, private citizens and government leaders continue to ask, as Edward Snowden becomes the linchpin of debate that is likely to last for some time to come. How it impacts world relations as well becomes the concern of everyone.
