Wk 4 Online censorship & digital access: Mormon Church Attacks Wikileaks - 6 views

• 
  #1 guanyou chen on 31 Aug 09

   

  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?

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">WIKILEAK RELEASES SECRET CHURCH DOCUMENTS! <br /> <br /> 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). <br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.dailytech.com/Mormon+Church+Attacks+Wikileaks/article11785.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.dailytech.com/Mormon+Church+Attacks+Wikileaks/article11785.htm</a> <br /> <a href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Scientology_threatens_Wikileaks_over_secret_cult_bibles" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Scientology_threatens_Wikileaks_over_secret_cult_bibles</a> <br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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! <br /> <br /> 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! <br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> Ethical Question: Simply put, is it okay to potentially expose an alleged evil with an act of evil too?</div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top