3 ms·
I'm not trying to argue that Bloomberg did anything illegal, so lets stay away from that red herring. I'm talking about whether their action was morally right;
by electrograv 8y ago
I'm not trying to argue that Bloomberg did anything illegal, so lets stay away from that red herring. I'm talking about whether their action was morally right; granted, morality and civic duty is a much more ambiguous topic, and I'm open to the possibility that my position is incorrect here.
To make an analogy: What if a newspaper was given sensitive personal information about someone that was legal to publish, but could have damaging effects to that person and the population as a whole if published too soon? Do newspapers have a civic responsibility to hold off on publishing information that would only be damaging to everyone (at least until it's safe to do so)?
- jstanley 8y agoPrivate people can have secrets, the government shouldn't. I don't think they did anything immoral by publishing (unless they believed what they wrote to be false).
- electrograv 8y ago> Private people can have secrets, the government shouldn't. That's a rather extreme claim, isn't it? Are you saying that governments should widely publish all defense research? Are you saying governments should widely publish and distribute military plans before putting them into action? Are you saying governments should publish the locations of all defensive and offensive weaponry, as well as constant position updates of all military submarines? That kind of openness would be suicidal. I agree that governments should encourage transparency, but not when that transparency would endanger lives etc.
- IBM 8y agoIt's not immoral if what's being reported is in the public interest. It's questionable when it's something like "Brad and Angelina are breaking up", but obviously not illegal.