Final Ethics Project.

Julian Assange

Julian Paul Assange is an Australian editor, activist, publisher and journalist. He is best known as the editor-in-chief and founder of WikiLeaks, which publishes submissions of secret information, news leaks and classified media from anonymous news sources and whistle blowers. Wikileaks website was initiated in 2006 in Iceland by the organization Sunshine Press.  According to the WikiLeaks website, its goals are to bring important news and information to the public by publishing original source material, alongside news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth, and to ensure that journalists and whistleblowers are not jailed for emailing sensitive or classified documents.

When I was growing up as a kid, I was hyper sensitive about the things that my parents used to hinder me from doing, without explaining to me why. This would make me more inquisitive and curious about them, and I would either persist until they would explain them to me, or until I would figure it out by myself. Now, this issue of “classified information” always triggers anxiety and the need to know more about it. We as ordinary people have no idea what goes on around us that is termed as classified. A lot more times than not, it always turns out not to be what it should. There are lots of dubious dealings that happen underground in the pretext of classified information.  This is what persons like Julian P. Assange want the public to know. The one thing about his belief is that no one should be left in the dark. Information should be accessible to anyone, as long as it is not adulterated. We elect leaders not to conceal information from us, but to actually avail it, as openness clears and washes away any doubt of wrong doing, and illicit conduct.

This brings me to Socrates. In the apology of Socrates, he attempted to defend himself and his conduct rather than to apologize for it with honesty and directness. He believed in the concepts of good and justice. Having divergent ideas and different perceptions on particular issues should not make one an enemy of justice. One should be given a platform onto which one can air out ones views. The only difference between Socrates and Julian is the era in which they have existed. My guess is that if Socrates then had had access to modern communication like the internet, he would have done exactly what Julian has done best all his life.
When i was a kid, my parents taught me how to share. Sharing is good. It is no crime. The only time sharing has been considered a bad thing is when whatever is supposed to be shared is actually bad, or when someone will take advantage of it and harm you. I believe in sharing. It is through sharing that we get the best out of every one. Take an example of open source code. A lot of computer programs have been greatly improved by sharing source code and making it available to anyone who can improve on it. Information should be equally shared and available to whoever wants it. No one should at any one time be victimized for accessing information. The files retrieved by wikileaks had a lot of bad stuff done back doors. No ordinary person would have known that if it was not for the good work of the gadfly Julian and team.
People should own up to their mistakes and crimes, other than unjustly victimizing those who expose their weird characters.  We are all equal and so should we be before the law and any other justice system, and the laws should be redefined to accommodate all free thinkers for the good of society. This leads me to John Rawls.  
John Rawls, considered the most important political philosopher of the 20th century, was an American political and ethical philosopher, best known for his defense of egalitarian liberalism. In his major work “A Theory of Justice”, Rawls defends a conception of “justice as fairness.” He holds that “An adequate account of justice cannot be derived from utilitarianism, because that doctrine is consistent with intuitively undesirable forms of government in which the greater happiness of a majority is achieved by neglecting the rights and interests of a minority”. Utilitarianism is in direct contrast to egoism, which is seeking own self-interest, even at the expense of others, with disregard to eventual consequences. Individuals would be led by reason and hence, self-interest to agree to a number of issues like equal liberties and social and economic equality.
I may not agree with him on economic equality because I believe that whoever works hard should be rewarded for his or her efforts, but I am in unison with him when it comes to equal liberties, because it all comes back to who should own one’s freedom of choice, expression and sharing.

It is my belief that no one should control one’s self in line with freedom of choice, expression, what to share, and who to share with, not forgetting access to information. Just like John Rawls advocated for fairness, so was Socrates, and Julian. Julian has been able to put everyone in power at a check point, the reason they wanted him prosecuted. If the accessed files were not bad files (files containing bad or dubious deals or clandestine undercover work), trust me no one would bother. Bad people pretend to be good and hide under the cover of the law, so that they can pass off quietly as innocent beings. This should stop hence forth. Change should be first implemented with redefinition of a number of laws, which suppress gadflies and all those who criticize evil. A lot more times, the minority and the poor suffer a lot because the flamboyant and draconian laws protect mostly the rich. Long live all gadflies.

I rest my case.