Wikileaks

My opponent has plagiarized his entire argument, which is more than bad conduct. It's downright cheating. http://www.nydailynews.com... For laughs I'll respond to the article he copied from. First, "Con" says Julian Assange steals information to disrupt the digital age. Wikileaks has not stolen any documents, and in fact had all of their information turned over to them voluntarily without force making this statement completely inaccurate. Second, the group Anonymous is not affiliated with Wikileaks and thus what that group does has no bearing on the Wikileaks organization. Next, Con talks about "concentrated attacks via the web" disrupting American life; however, Wikileaks has been part of no such disruption and has no plans to engage in this type of cyberwarfare my opponent describes. As I explained in the last round, they are a media organization -- they do not care to interfere with people's lives (such as what Anonymous did regarding credit cards) but to report important world news. The government would love everybody to be terrified of Wikileaks as quite obviously they don't want Wikileaks to expose any more of their corruption. Finally even if measures need to be taken to protect against cyber-terrorism, the government should *allow Wikileaks* as Wikileaks and the purpose IT serves (not cyber-destruction) is what is up for discussion. Now onto my contentions... News organizations shape the way we view political candidates (many of whom we will never get to meet or observe directly) - the ones we elect into office to run our country and essentially forfeit our liberties to. However, journalism has become an industry not about informing the public and keeping governments honest, but another opportunity for competition and profit completely interfering with the integrity of such endeavors. Rupert Murdoch owns 9 television networks, 100 cable channels, 175 newspapers, 40 book imprints, 40 television stations and 1 movie studio. His audience consists of 4.7 billion people - 3/4 of the entire world population [1]. Because of his strong ties to Conservatives and their platform, it's safe to say that the vast majority of his publications all have a particular right-wing bias - including Fox News, the most widely watched news channel [2]. Ironically, this is also considered the most biased news channel [3]. Why is this important? Wealthy individuals directly or indirectly tied to the media have founded and funded think tanks that shape political discourse and influence the way people view particular people and policies. It becomes apparent that they have incentives to be less than forthcoming on various issues paramount to public interest. The fact that so many people are receiving limited and tainted information that promotes a particular point of view essentially likens us to manipulated pawns specifically kept uninformed. Meanwhile, Wikileaks is a transparent, not-for-profit news organization that provides a secure and anonymous way for people to send information to journalists that otherwise would not have made the evening news. The anonymity factor is increasingly important in a world that seeks to stifle our civil liberties such as freedom of speech and the press -- especially because our less than ethical government cannot be trusted to simply not persecute you for truth-telling as they have done so many times before. However, unlike other anonymous sources, Wikileaks actually fact-checks all of their information, and further, provides access to their acquired resources so viewers can be confident they are receiving completely unfettered evidence. The public needs to scrutinize information in order to have a better idea of the politicians and policies we help elect. In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court ruled that "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government" [4]. Ironically, the government has the power to control what the press reports, rendering this a completely moot or rather obsolete point. In order for this to be effective, the press must actually have the opportunity to report important information and so far Wikileaks has proven to be the source for such monumental exposure. Unlike other news organizations, Wikileaks does not seek to compete for profit but rather work cooperatively to help share pertinent information. This means they do not focus on hoarding information but sharing to help educate and inform as many people as possible. Because they are an independent firm, they do not hesitate to hold certain people accountable or struggle with asking tough questions regarding questionable business or political practices. As such, it becomes apparent that this is one of the most reliable and accurate sources for news we have today. So far Wikileaks is responsible for breaking several stories regarding numerous instances of blatant government corruption. Quite obviously the government would render this information impermissible to report otherwise, leaving us completely ignorant and impotent regarding our capacity to make informed decisions. Because politicians are supposed to be public servants, the public has a right to know when they've been intentionally deceived, or when their leaders are acting completely unscrupulous. Because the government has a monopoly on force, they cannot be responsible for holding themselves accountable. In our government we have a system of checks and balances, and likewise, media is a check on government so we can ensure those that work for us (employed by our tax dollars) are actually working in our best interest, and within the parameters of the laws they have established and to which everyone else is expected to abide. While their personal lives are irrelevant (and Wikileaks has not concerned themselves with that), the role they play in our government should be subject to transparency. It is precisely because of secrecy that we endure so much corruption. Essentially Wikileaks is a haven for whistle blowers to be forthright and help right the many wrongs of our government. Consider Daniel Ellsberg who worked for the U.S. government during the Vietnam War. He came to possess a meticulous record of how the government and military planned to specifically deceive the American people. Upon exposure of such documents, controversy inevitably ensued, but it's safe to say his whistle blowing helped shorten the war and save thousands of American and Vietnamese lives despite criminal charges being brought against him for such heroism. In this way we see the issue is more than about demanding to be kept out of the dark, but also a moral obligation to save and protect innocent people who are affected by our government's dishonesty. Perhaps the most interesting quandary of the whole Wikileaks debate is the way in which certain criticism has seemed so backwards. Secrecy laws are being used to keep the public ignorant and avoid accountability for those in power. While a few patriotic idealists may be swayed to cite the "necessity" of such secrecy for "our own protection," one only needs to look at Wikileaks' reporting to see exactly how those laws are actually being utilized and why. Upon revelation, you would think that a rational being would acknowledge the deception and feel betrayed by playing into their naivety. However many have expressed outrage at Wikileaks for having the audacity to reveal such abominations in an effort to maintain integrity. Opponents of this website suggest that those who lie, torture, kill or commit a plethora of other immoral and heinous crimes against humanity are less blameworthy than those who talk about it. [1] Outfoxed Documentary [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com...