3 ms·
I get the principle of the point you’re making but I don’t see how it can work if (and maybe this is the key bit) a state is allowed to have secrets. Perhaps I
by tomalpha 6y ago
I get the principle of the point you’re making but I don’t see how it can work if (and maybe this is the key bit) a state is allowed to have secrets.
Perhaps I’m blinkered, but I can’t see how a modern state can function without them in some form. To offer an extreme example, nuclear launch codes must remain secret. (Separate argument obvs about the merits for and against nuclear weapons).
If the state is going to have some secrets, I don’t see how they can work in practice if everyone is allowed to know them.
Separately I’m not sure I buy the slippery slope argument as an absolute given. It’s a clear risk yes, but I see good journalism as one of the safeguards against all forms of government malpractice, corruption or straight incompetence.
- eternalban 6y agoA society can set the standard of "responsible disclosure" that is done to serve the "right to know" to the public. A jury of peers can judge if the two conditions above are met. [It should be also noted that the fact that state craft requires secrets is not a carte blanche to the state to commit illegal acts.] Nuclear launch codes can remain secret. It is difficult to see how the disclosure could possibly be both "respnsible" and "in the public interest". Disclosing that certain government agencies are running projects like "MK-Ultra" [1], "Mockingbird" [2], "Artichoke" [3] is in the public interest. (You know, one of the characters in one of John le Carré's Smiley books once said: "A nation's secret services are the true reflection of its soul"...) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mockingbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mockingbird [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_ARTICHOKE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_ARTICHOKE