Gold Flakes Souvenirs

Debates

Gabriel Silva
BLASFÉMIAS

Caro JMF,

Debate? Só existe debate entre os jornalistas. Apanhados em contra-mão e à nora sem saber bem o que fazer, viram-se para o umbigo a discutir assuntos tão relevantes sobre o que é jornalismo, o que é investigação, fontes e … intenções. Chega a ser um bocadinho pueril essa questão da intenção. Imagine-se se tal novíssima concern were applied each time an agent PJ / District Attorney / Judicial Officer are part of criminal investigations for the newspapers. It would certainly curious that at this time debating the intention of passing this information and not information in itself, would not it? Or about the intention of a member government that says journalist wonder what the next minister remodelável, etc.. Etc.. The newspapers were pages of discussion of intent. The facts should walk around and had to be treated by others.

He says they are not expected to be revealed documents about the misdeeds of Russia and Iran Right. The scrutiny and transparency make sense only and are only effective in open and free societies. They are really vital and integral part of these societies. I wanted to what? A piece of paper to prove that the Russian rulers or mess Angolan people's money in his pocket? Oh, nobody knew. ...! That an Iranian leader told to stop an opponent? Look at the news! And the consequences? None. In free societies is that the election takes effect, it makes sense and is required.

Julian Assange argues that "... no great scruples handles huge amounts of information and promotes abuses of secret communications on behalf of non-transparency but to try to destroy the kind of society we live. "Handles? They are there. Simply to be treated because they know, want, or might be interested. "Violations of secret communications"? But what is kept secret aims to be discovered, no? And what's the problem exactly? "... Destroy the kind of society we live '? No and no. Some of the facts reveal themselves and it is known that may lead in that direction. And surely destroy the kind of society we live in is the persecution that Wikileaks suffering in recent days. The means used against it is that violate and destroy the society we want (at least I) live.

"It's good to know when we walk and which side are those who defend liberty as well as those who use it to destroy the best.." Yes, it's good. But then, unless I have not understood the whole meaning of his text, the idea that the use of the freedom can destroy, besides being idea who denies that is living in freedom (always be monitored and limited), is unfortunately (and history proves this) a thousand times the argument used by those who want to limit, in whatever political system is.