Self-censorship vs. Self-policing

James Cornelison
jc077713@ohio.edu

In a time when a large amount of power is given to a select few people making decisions behind closed doors, most consumers of news and public information aren't just asking for transparency. They're working for it. This can be demonstrated by the fact that Freedom of Information Act (or FOIA) requests are at their highest level of volume since 2009.

Culturally, less of the active constituency is willing to accept that our government and our military must make decisions with such secrecy, and less are willing to trust the decisions they come up with under those circumstances. And when the government and other interests try to build the case for the necessity of secrecy, the term used most often is "National Security." Certain information, if revealed, could cause harm to our collective safety and those doing the most to protect it, our military.

Journalists, leakers, and, whistle-blowers have long been faced with the task of discerning weather it's more valuable for information to be illuminated or kept hidden. Self-censorship is not a new concept or debate. But the United States has been the world's leading super power for decades now. Accountability is new to this nation or at least a relic. One of the strongest cases against the concept of self-censorship is self-policing.

When embarrassing or harmful stories come out regarding our military and our government, it gives the rest of the world reasons to resent us, leverage to use against us, and fodder with which to mock us. So releasing all the less-than-ideal information our government is hiding seems counter intuitive to our national interests. However, sometimes the source of the outrage is just as important an issue (and a more important indicator) as the reason for the outrage. Not only would the increased risk of embarrassment and conviction be a deterrent against unethical behavior, but overall opinion could be changed so that it's apparent the American public is victimized by the actions of an unrepresentative few. It's harder to pin ones anger on another when that very group of people shares in their discontent.

This strategy of protection, although not the most popular, has been effective for many coalitions throughout history. It's why extremists are able to claim some popular position for an atrocious act and yet the position remains undefined by its outlier. Freedom of association also translates to freedom of disassociation. A lot of good can come to those who are able to credibly demonstrate the differences between themselves and those who are demonized most by others.

So while national security makes it necessary to keep some information hidden, it's national security all the same to reveal information, too. If the same collection of facts and data is determined to be simultaneously beneficial to one group and harmful to another, we may want to reevaluate who we choose to associate with based on the similarities between their interests and our own. An organization that says it's hurting you so that it can help you should have the burden of proof and accountability for their activities.