3 ms·

Considering true information as "harmful" is perfectly normal in Western societies as well (in certain contexts). The U.S. government response to leaks from Che

Considering true information as "harmful" is perfectly normal in Western societies as well (in certain contexts). The U.S. government response to leaks from Chelsea Manning, Snowden, and the leaks flowing right now from the current administration have been similar: "The REAL problem is how damaging this leak is!" I don't mean to imply that it's an acceptable thing to think, or that the U.S. is as authoritarian as China (it's not by an order of magnitude), but contextualizing this makes it seem less surprising. If we're more alarmed, we should have been this alarmed to begin with. This is the party that spearheaded the Cultural Revolution and erected the Great Firewall... this kind of behavior is very par for the course.

LeifCarrotson 9y ago
There's a difference between being harmful to an administrative agenda, and harmful to people. It's one thing to publish a leak detailing corruption which "harms" the agenda and reputation of the criminals engaged in it. Boo on them. "That which can be destroyed by the truth should be." It's another to publish a leak that reveals identities and plans made in secret, and gets people killed. Somewhere in the middle are leaks like yesterday's transcripts of Trump talking to Australia and Mexico: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/australia-mexico-transcripts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/austra... Perhaps world leaders should be able to speak together confidentially, and perhaps these transcripts will 'harm' people in the future when politicians are less able to communicate frankly because the conversations are public.
am1988 9y ago
The press still publishes the information and the government generally doesn't get to censor it. The government is free to try and stop leaks. That's not the same thing as censorship. The level of secrecy a government operates under is a massive issue, but it's not the same one. > this kind of behavior is very par for the course. That doesn't mean we should normalize it.
closeparen 9y ago
The government made no serious attempt to censor the contents of leaks once leaked. Once the papers get their hands on something, it becomes public. The "censorship" activity here is to identify, punish, and deter people in positions of privileged access to "black" information who transfer it to the public domain, not people in the "clear" world who repeat that information.

LeifCarrotson 9y ago

There's a difference between being harmful to an administrative agenda, and harmful to people. It's one thing to publish a leak detailing corruption which "harms" the agenda and reputation of the criminals engaged in it. Boo on them. "That which can be destroyed by the truth should be." It's another to publish a leak that reveals identities and plans made in secret, and gets people killed. Somewhere in the middle are leaks like yesterday's transcripts of Trump talking to Australia and Mexico: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/australia-mexico-transcripts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/austra... Perhaps world leaders should be able to speak together confidentially, and perhaps these transcripts will 'harm' people in the future when politicians are less able to communicate frankly because the conversations are public.

am1988 9y ago

The press still publishes the information and the government generally doesn't get to censor it. The government is free to try and stop leaks. That's not the same thing as censorship. The level of secrecy a government operates under is a massive issue, but it's not the same one. > this kind of behavior is very par for the course. That doesn't mean we should normalize it.

closeparen 9y ago

The government made no serious attempt to censor the contents of leaks once leaked. Once the papers get their hands on something, it becomes public. The "censorship" activity here is to identify, punish, and deter people in positions of privileged access to "black" information who transfer it to the public domain, not people in the "clear" world who repeat that information.