{Extra} Got me thinkin'

As my media law class progresses, I am beginning to take notice of patterns our government has taken both for and against its own citizens. After a recent lecture on the Progressive Era of (1914-1929), two particular years stood out to me and got me thinking. The years in question are 1917-1918. 

By this time, the United States had entered into World War I and with that many people were against the United States involvement. When Congress passed the Espionage Act, giving way for people to legally be jailed for speaking out against the war efforts and ultimately bringing about the Sedition Act of 1918. This Act was created so that people could not speak out against the government. That not only applied to government employees but also to regular citizens. 

In thinking about this, and recalling how the Edward Snowden case unfolded, I am left questioning if Snowden's 1st amendment rights were protected. Could it have been a case of whistleblowing that our own government wanted to keep from American citizens? The question of whether  Snowden is a traitor or a hero varies on who you ask. 

For me, I fall more on the traitor end of the spectrum regarding the actions taken by Edward Snowden. Although my sense of what is ethically right or wrong determine my view on why Edward Snowden should be viewed more conservatively and as a traitor, I do also find merit in those who view him as an American who felt compelled to inform about the governments wrongdoings. Edward Snowden should be viewed more as a traitor because he did break the oath for the office he served. He did take an oath to uphold the Constitution so handing over information to journalists did break that oath. Snowden did not seek out others in high office to assist him in his disclosure and he gave classified documents to people outside of the American government. His actions should give pause to those who support him since he chose to not face the consequences for a cause he so firmly believed in. Now, that is my opinion clearly based on my limited knowledge and understanding of the law.

However, when recently learning about the various Sedition Acts that have been passed in our nations history, the government has often had free reign to prosecute people, not just government employees who spoke out against the government or the governments efforts in certain areas. Snowdens claim was that he was speaking out against how our government was illegally spying and surveilling its citizens. 

So, my question turns from not whether Snowden was a traitor or hero but whether he had a right to disclose such information. Perhaps working for the government mandates that some of your first amendment rights are negated and when you take on high ranking positions that you essentially forfeit some of those rights. If this is so, it seems like this would allow our government the ability to control and to limit a persons rights under the guise of national security or some other 'thing.' So how is that okay?

Don't we want full disclosure on things that we as American citizens should know and if the government is allowed to to limit such freedoms under the guise of say national security, doesn't that send a message to the public that they should keep quiet on things of importance for fear of backlash from their own government?

There are numerous times in history when coverups happen, where the governments agenda was put before the needs and rights of American citizens. For me personally, I believe there is right and wrong. I do not side with Snowden and believe he did break the law but also simultaneously believe that he had a right to inform but should have done so through proper channels.