Snowden affair fires up controversy over national security vs pressfreedoms

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.

Entertainment venues act as front for pornography and crime

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

What are the limits of free speech with reference to an anti-Islamvideo?

[caption id="attachment_6526" align="alignleft" width="300"] Judge's tools[/caption]

Carol Forsloff — Many people in the United States echo their rights of free speech as secured by the Constitution.  The Supreme Court, however, has on several occasions indicated that the right of freedom of speech is not absolute, especially when it puts people at peril.

One of those key decisions was Schenk vs the United States. During World War I, Charles Schenk voiced his opposition to the war by mailing pamphlets to American soldiers and was consequently charged with espionage.  The Supreme Court upheld his conviction. Under what circumstances are the rights of free speech limited?

Justice Oliver Wendell wrote the opinion for the unanimous Supreme Court decision. He stated that under ordinary circumstances Schenk would have a right to express his opinion about the war, but freedom of speech depends on circumstances. "The most stringent protection of free speech," Holmes wrote, "would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." Justice Holmes compared that circumstance to living in a nation at war. He went on to explain, "The question in every case is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

Presently the United States is being condemned for a YouTube video in which its producer vilifies Islam in inflammatory language.   The video was independently made, and US officials have explained that America does not concur with the video content and that the country should not be attacked because a private citizen uploaded a video that mocks the Prophet Muhammad. A user called Sam Bacile uploaded the film on July 2. The film was dubbed in Arabic and was seen by TV networks in Egypt. After that, the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was burned down. The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three members of his staff were killed and riots broke out in other Middle Eastern and North African countries. YouTube consequently took down the video in what was described as a temporary measure, resulting from the content of the video. US officials, in the meantime, have condemned the retaliatory attacks but also the video, which is said to have inflamed the mobs to riot.

It is the concern of American officials that the situation in the Middle East has great volatility and that a video that mocks the Prophet Muhammad imperils US citizens and the nation's relationships with countries in the region. Supreme Court decisions such as Schenk vs the United States are often cited as the foundation for restricting the rights of free speech when that free speech can be demonstrated as causing, or tending to cause, violence.