First of
all, I thought that the group presentation was very on point, I loved every bit
of it! The handout was very helpful, and
I learned quite a bit about the constitutional premises within journalism,
specifically the Pentagon Papers and Edward Snowden. The most interesting part to me was the debate
that we had about the Snowden case.
I read two
articles that talked about the Snowden case, both of which are very compelling
and interesting. The first article is
located here: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/16/mps-investigate-guardian-edward-snowden-leaks. This article talks about how members of parliament
are investing the Guardian’s role in the Snowden leaks.
The second
article that I read is located here: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/16/mps-investigate-guardian-edward-snowden-leaks. This article, as the title alludes, is talking
about how Snowden isn’t a hero, even though he is seen that way in the eyes of
most American citizens. The main
argument is that he compromised the national security of the US because terrorists
could now dodge the US’s surveillance tactics.
I’m not sure whether I think of him as a hero or not, but it’s a
compelling debate.
The dispersion
of information is an important component of democracy, but I think that a line
should be drawn when lives are absolutely compromised. In Snowden’s case, I feel like surveillance isn’t
necessarily the most effective method of security, and no large scale attacks
have happened since the release, so I don’t buy that it compromised the
national security just yet. If a
newspaper is about to publish something that would directly harm the life of
one police officer, for instance, I think that would be unjust and shouldn’t be
allowed. It’s a tough debate, but very
interesting!
No comments:
Post a Comment