The Right To Know: The Whistleblower Debate
Angela Stănescu · The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences · 2017
In the wake of 9/11, with the ongoing War on Terror and the constant threat of terrorism, the legal deterrents applicable to the press liberties warranted by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution are seen as more justifiable than ever. There are, however, many voices denouncing the strengthening of an extended system of state sanctioned surveillance and control considered to infringe upon these elemental freedoms. The so-called whistleblowers, brought to the fore of public debate by the revelatory project of Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks, reclaim their right to uncover the truth about governmental practices that infringe upon the citizens’ fundamental liberties and rights or the about the occult rationales of certain political, economic or military decisions. Whistleblowers who release classified documents pointing to allegedly unorthodox dealings of government have generated a worldwide debate, residing in the clash between two opposing views – on the one hand, there are those who condemn such leaks as treacherous acts which should be prosecuted accordingly, while others defend them in the name of the right to free speech and information. This paper examines the public rhetoric of both sides, analyzing the kind of discourses and arguments for or against such disclosures, which cast whistleblowers as either heroes, who uphold transparency and democratic values by challenging powerful institutions, or as traitors who unlawfully expose state and corporate secrets. The intended discourse analysis is mainly focused on the Edward Snowden debate.