not always true, but often enough...

[acroyear]

WikiLeaks: The revolution has begun – and it will be digitised | Heather Brooke | Comment is free | The Guardian:

What we have seen from disclosures like MPs' expenses or revelations about the complicity of government in torture is that when politicians speak of a threat to "national security", often what they mean is that the security of their own position is threatened.

as for when "national security" also aligns with "illegal actions", well then yes there's a problem and the libertarian in me would rather the leak than the silence.

on the other hand, the american public has shown itself to be utterly unethical in its lack of regard for the illegal actions of the past administration, as well as the apathy in dealing with it by the current.

it has always been the case: if you don't want the public to find out about your illegal or unethical behaviour, then the solution is simple: never do anything illegal or unethical.

one would think such a "Christian" nation would know such a basic fact.

but then there's the counter: if you don't do anything illegal or unethical, the media will make it up for you.  Johnny Depp recently did a film with Angelina Jolie, and in interviews he said he intentionally stayed as far away from her as possible when the film's cameras were off, just to avoid one paparazzi with one picture creating a tabloid rumor headline from hell, like "Depp says he can be a better father to Jolie's kids than Pitt", which we all know would have been inevitable.

guess we can't win, no matter what...especially in this land of the allegedly free and the home of the cowardly double standard:

Ironically, the US state department has been one of the biggest cheerleaders for technical innovation as a means of bringing democracy to places like Iran and China. President Obama has urged repressive regimes to stop censoring the internet, yet a bill before Congress would allow the attorney general to create a blacklist of websites. Is robust democracy only good when it's not at home?

such bills are really bad precedent. as soon as we give the government authority to remove a website because of alleged copyright violations, we give them the right to remove a website for any other reason...especially because they can just assert that the "leak" being talked about is under copyright. the church of scientology is a wonderful example of this...

Comments

[thelongshot.livejournal.com]

Funny you mention Jolie. She's involved in another controversy.

Apparently she's making her directing debut with a love story that takes place in war-torn Bosnia. The problems started because it was rumored the plot involved a moslem woman falling in love with her Serbian rapist. This angered Women Victims of War, who want her removed as a UN goodwill ambassador. She has since said that it isn't true and has tried to meet with them to clear up misconceptions about the film, but they seem too angry that they weren't talked with in the first place.

And yeah, I'm disappointed for the support of COICA from both parties. But, this comes around not because Government wants to make a power grab, but corporate interests want a power grab. It doesn't mean that the Government won't take advantage of it if they can.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

i always love how groups like that (including governments, just ask Murray Head bout Bankok) always attack the performers rather than the writers when it comes to "historical inaccuracies" and being "insensitive". it seems like only in England is the writer actually considered more important than the actors, which i guess says something for the state of literacy and awareness in that country compared to the rest of the world.

[thelongshot.livejournal.com]

Well, in this case she's the director, so it is certainly appropriate to castigate her if it is warranted. Course, it might not be since it seems that they are working off of rumor and "being offended" rather than any real issue. This smells more like a group trying to get attention. While I can respect that to a certain extent, there are better ways to go about doing that.