Do We Really Have Freedom Of Speech?

Bradley Manning had access to confidential files and record as an Army intelligence analyst in Iraq. In the year 2010, Manning revealed confidential information to the website called WikiLeaks. The material contained various sensitive information such as videos of the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike, and the 2009 Granai airstrike in Afghanistan; 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables; and 500,000 Army reports that came to be known as the Iraq War logs and Afghan War logs. The majority of this information was published by the website WikiLeaks or the like. Bradley Manning’s case was somewhat complex because he didn’t initially express his reasoning for doing this and he appeared to have indiscriminately released numerous amounts of government records. Manning’s defense lawyer claimed that WikiLeaks is a valid media outlet, while the opposition claims that Manning was not a whistleblower leaking to a news outlet, but just a fame-seeker who released the information indiscriminately for his own purposes. ("What Bradley Manning Leaked.") Whether WikiLeaks is a valid reporting and journalistic media outlet or not, the case unfolded as the United States’ government began to scrutinize all media and information disclosures to the public.

This year’s election alone has brought about many emotions and deep rooted feelings that have not come out in years. Hate speech and actions carried out because of hate speech has cause a deep division in American culture. Groups like “Black Lives Matter”, “All Lives Matter”, and “Alt-Right” are all under fire for things that have been said or done in the names of these groups. There has been terrorist attacks in the names of religious groups whom believe that a newspaper or group has insulted their religion, beliefs, and gods. Not to mention our own President Elect of the United States, Donald Trump, has been accused of fueling much of the hate speech we see today. This begs the question, should freedom of speech have any restrictions or be limited in any way, or is that unconstitutional? To look at this we must first identify what “Freedom of Speech” is as defined in the constitution and how it relates to current issues in the world and in America, then I will talk about some situations where regulation is already put in place in America, lastly we will look at some situations where I believe freedom of speech could use some clarification or restriction.

Edward Snowden is responsible for exposing these government secrets. Many call this an act of treason, but it can also be seen as an act of civil disobedience. The most peaceful nature of his rebellion, and the unconstitutional behavior that it consequentially exposed qualify his actions. Although it was wrong of him to escape the consequences of his actions by fleeing to Hong Kong, his actions were ultimately beneficial to the American public. Being spied upon by the government is a direct violation of our right to privacy, and hiding it from the public is wrong as well. From John Cassidy’s article, “Why Edward Snowden is a hero,” he quotes Ellsberg; “‘This wholesale invasion of Americans and foreign citizens’ privacy does not contribute to our security; it puts in danger the very liberties we are trying to protect.’” The act of bringing these facts to light is an act of trying to preserve our liberty, and that’s what civil disobedience is all about.

Edward Snowden isn’t the only person who believes what the U.S. had done was wrong, but also many American leaders, and other nations around the world. The United States had not only been collecting data on their own citizens, but also of other countries leaders and citizens. The release of these documents had strained political relationships between the U.S. and other allied nations. The knowledge and truth other leaders and nations had gained

Another issue in this case is the “theft” that Snowden partook in. Theft is the “act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny” ("Theft | Define Theft at Dictionary.com." xx). This aspect of the case is important because Snowden’s actions reject the cultural norms of what is expected of individuals in respect to the term. These expectations within our culture is for individuals to not commit acts of theft.

Edward Snowden is a whistleblower from the 21st century. Snowden was a man who had outstanding IT skills and eventually landed a job at the NSA. He gained access to numerous files that showed the crimes the NSA was committing against its own people and against other countries as well. They were spying on people’s privacy and claimed that it was for the national security that would benefit all people. Snowden said that he could not let this

People might not think about being watched when they’re posting personal experiences in their life on social media. The government has the ability and justification to go through a person’s social media site, listen to phone calls, and read text messages as a way of narrowing down possible suspects for terrorism. The privacy laws in America are what allows the U.S. government to search the digital world for possible threats to the country. Although some say that privacy laws help American citizens keep their confidentiality for medical reasons, also as benefits for social security, I still maintain that privacy laws gives the government undeserved power and can give the impression of being watched .

Many people have gone to court questioning exactly what freedom of speech means, and through these cases, it’s been made clear that this freedom does not exist in all situations. For example, you cannot say something that would put people in danger or create disorder. A common example of this being yelling fire in a movie theater, but it also includes things like destroying draft cards and making public private material. Another point is that, although the government might not punish you for saying certain things, other people may have the right to. For instance, if a school tells you not to say something, and you do, the school has full right to discipline or expell

Edward Snowden was a man who worked for the NSA and exposed all of the information that the NSA was accessing from U.S. citizens and those people around the world. Through his actions Snowden did break the law, “He has been charged with theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful communication of classified communications intelligence” (BBC News). Even though Snowden knew he would be charged for his actions, he still wanted to do the right thing and expose to the people what the NSA was doing. Snowden was looking at the information that was being collected and realized it was not necessary to keep Americans safe. Instead, collecting this information was abruptly digging into their lives and going against their rights as human beings. When this information was exposed, the citizens wanted the government and the NSA to ultimately change what exactly they were accessing and how they were accessing it. This event that Snowden

The act of Edward Snowden has created tension between the Europeans and Americans. Because of Edwards Snowden up rising countries has started to be more worry some around the U.S . European leaders spoked out about the NSA and accused the U.S of spying on the american leaders without permission. But gladly Europe and the U.S both issued a statement to agree to stay together as allied neighbors (UPI International Intelligence, 2013, para. 4). Hopyfully one day Edward Snowdens act will be news of the past and the U.S will have an even stronger bond with the other countries than before. Edward Snowden has many reasons for what he has done but he did it for what he thought was best for the people and not his own self interest.

Mr. Edward Snowden shared truths to the American people on what the NSA does. Some people may say that his reveal is simply common sense or went against our nation, labeling him a traitor. However, ““Snowden has brought to light important information that deserved to be in the public domain, while doing no lasting harm to the national security of his country.”” (John Cassidy, 2013) To those who trusted other NSA officials on what they truly do, Mr. Snowden can be other source to get the truth; it’s debatable on why a 29-year-old would go out of his way to lie about a vital matter. Snowden said himself that he doesn’t want to live in a world where everything he does and say is reordered. His act, whether you think it was idiotic or heroic, revealed to America on what our countries intentions are for both our nation and around the world.

Edward Snowden released crucial information to the citizens of this country. At the time, the head of the NSA, James Clapper, committed perjury in front of Congress when testifying about the NSA surveillance program. Nothing ever happened to him. Even so, Snowden now has to hide in Russia in order to stay free, because President Obama has charged him with espionage. Snowden, performing one of the bravest acts this country has seen in its modern age, will likely never be able to return to this country until a different administration drops the charges against him.

Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency (N.S.A) subcontractor turned whistle-blower is nothing short of a hero. His controversial decision to release information detailing the highly illegal ‘data mining’ practices of the N.S.A have caused shockwaves throughout the world and have raised important questions concerning how much the government actually monitors its people without their consent or knowledge. Comparable to Mark Felt in the Watergate scandals, Daniel Ellsberg with the Pentagon Papers, Edward Snowden joins the rank of infamous whistleblowers who gave up their jobs, livelihood, and forever will live under scrutiny of the public all in the service to the American people. Edward Snowden released information detailing the

As history can attest, government whistleblowers act honorably for the greater good despite threat of prosecution. Government transparency, especially in acts of war, is important to a functioning democracy. J. William Leonard, former US classifications czar, In the documentary We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks, illustrates, “To have those types of decisions, those types of deliberations, done in secrecy is a tremendous disservice to the American people – because these are things being done in their name – so, whether you agree with them or not, to have a free back-and-forth airing of these is essential”. In support of these concepts, those behind WikiLeaks and other government leaks have taken great risks. Birgitta Jonsdottir, member of WikiLeaks and Icelandic parliament, stated, “We were working on something that we knew that could get us into serious trouble and we were all willing to take that consequence” (“We Steal Secrets”). In We Steal Secrets, instant messages between Bradley Manning and the man who eventually turned him in, hacker

The fact Snowden chose to leak only information he and his media connections felt would not be detrimental to the public or government, yet would provide enough information that the public as to start an open debate on “big brother” oversight and privacy laws, shows that Snowden was in good faith and conscious leaking information for good and not for personal gains.