WIKILEAK RELEASES SECRET CHURCH DOCUMENTS!

The First Link is an article regarding Wikileaks releasing a 'copyrighted' and confidential Church document of the Mormons (also known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

The Second elaborates on a section mention in the first article regarding once again, Wikileaks releasing a Church Document, this time one which belongs to the Church of Scientology.

http://www.dailytech.com/Mormon+Church+Attacks+Wikileaks/article11785.htm
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Scientology_threatens_Wikileaks_over_secret_cult_bibles

Firstly, I would like to say I hope I don't offend anyone who belong to the religion and are in this class (haha, yes Jo, i know what you are thinking). The issue here is that an online organization had released some materials which they do not owe but wanted to disseminate it in light of its mission/ideals. The question is, is this acceptable, even from a purely ethical viewpoint? The themes of the posts pertains to the freedom of information/digital access.

For those of you who have never heard of Wikileaks, the site describes itself as a avenue to 'help you safely get the truth out' and 'is the global defense of sources and press freedoms'. This swashbuckling self-proclaimer of justice has also been said to be 'as important a journalistic tool as the Freedom of Information Act' by Time Magazine.

Yet the problem is that, no matter their intentions, this site did released (possibly illegally) private documents which the pertaining owners did not desire to be shown. Even if we don't consider the legal implications, is there anyway for Wikileaks to vindicate itself on this charge? If you look at the second article, you can see that the article defiantly proclaims its right to expose frauds/cults - which it obviously sees the two Churches as. Personally, I think the Churches (especially Scientology) are a bunch of money-grabbing crocks, and thus see myself naturally siding with Wikileaks. But let's consider the ethical formations of the wikileaks.

They most likely have a Utilitarian view, or rather, hold opinions that can be justified by it because they concentrate on the teleological aspect of reasoning by seeing that as a consequence of their acts, justice that otherwise cannot be found in the offline world can be achieved here. A necessary evil you could say. They are also driven by a deontological need to bring about this justice. And their continued resistance in the face of the Churches' lawsuit are an example of Ethical altruism.

I feel that under the umbrella of their website, they should not be at fault despite obvious considerations; such as the cause they are fighting for being equivocal and ambiguous. But because this is a website meant to expose 'injustice', i would argue that the complains of the Churches cannot breach their walls. This is from me already accepting the the internet should afford rights of anonymity and freedom of speech as it is, according to the Spinello, 'a one last bastion of free, uninhibited expression.' While it is true that ultimately, they might be wrong for posting other's property, they are simply backing up their stand against this entities. While you could argue against the legality of this action, i strongly believe that it is the right of an organization to support any view/cause it chooses in an online arena and support it with any means. At any rate, only the Mormons could have any argument here since the document released does not serve much definite purpose. But the documents of the Scientologists only expose what was written in the first place...bullshit. They would only be worried because now everyone can see how dumb they are!

Cry foul against by stand if you want, and attack the many holes in my ethical argument. But without Wikileaks and other such entities to take the controversial steps to ensure justice, there will simply be too many crap from these authority figures being allowed to run amok. V for vendetta bitches!

Ethical problem: When the cause is not absolutely backed up, problems arise when online enitites take matter into their own hand with means that go too far, or infringe on the guilty parties' right.

Ethical Question: Simply put, is it okay to potentially expose an alleged evil with an act of evil too?

Link: http://www.rednano.sg/sfe/pastnews.action?&querystring=online%20defamation&pubid=ST&sort=D

Summary:

A man who visited and then later robbed a prostitute was chastised and publicly shamed in an online forum (the very same forum which he first solicited her services). This forum was suppose to ensure anonymity, but enraged by his actions, a few zealous members of the forum dug up private information on the man and posted it online.

Ethical Problem:

This is an interesting case to ruminate on because inherently, both the victim and the protagonist are involved in shady prostitution business - which is a questionable ethical issue on its own. This is further impinged by the fact that these already dubious affairs were carried out on a forum created to ensure that these affairs were kept in the dark (a social construct of technology). In the article the issue was whether it was a justified action by the righteous members, who I am sure were driven by a deontological zest to crucify the guilty party. While no doubt we all would feel that the man deserved some form of reckoning, as Lawyer Amolat Singh has mentioned to the Newpaper, this could possibly be an illegal act to do. So herein lies the dilemma, because while technology allowed some 'justice' to be served, the ethical principles behind the punishment are much more controversial.

In a single sentence, the problem could be summarized as such: While doing a wrong thing with a woman, a man did a other wrong thing to a woman, and a few other wanted to do the right thing by punishing him but did something that was possibly, ethically right but legally wrong. Confusing? Intriguing perhaps, with the many layers of morality needed before we can consider the ethical implications of the
actions.

Ethical Question:

Ethical problems are difficult enough to manage even when the morality underlying it is more or less fixed. Yet in this unique case, where the ethical actions are based on already morally questionable affairs, can conventional ethical logic still function or do we have to reconsider them in a different light?