I know it when I see it.
That’s what the Supreme Court uses to define obscenity. Obscenity is one of the areas that constantly wars with freedom of speech detractors. The problem is one of defending something you think reprehensible. It makes drifting to the side of the book burners appealing.
TheFreeDictionary.com says this:
1. Offensive to accepted standards of decency or modesty.
2. Inciting lustful feelings; lewd.
3. Repulsive; disgusting: "The way he writes about the disease that killed her is simply obscene" (Michael Korda).
4. So large in amount as to be objectionable or outrageous: "local merchants in nearby stores get hammered by stratospheric rents and obscene taxes" (Joe Queenan).
I enjoy dictionaries. At their base they correct my horrid spelling proclivity. That keeps the language police at bay around here. But thing like I just listed are my real joy. It introduces nuance. I mentioned in friend Bastion’s blog I don’t like being assaulted by view. That goes for those I agree with and those I don’t.
I have been following the WikiLeaks release of thousands of classified documents. The site claims they are journalists and associates itself with mainstream media. While mainstream media – a human institution – isn’t always neutral to a cause, it does have standards developed over time. Like Google it strives to do no harm but doesn’t always succeed.
Leaks are good. Whistle blowers should be protected. The Freedom of Information Act serves well. There are mechanisms in place to allow the investigative journalist to proceed toward his goals. Once those goals provide information, the true journalist not only reviews what is publishable and pertinent but evaluates the impact it will have on the innocent or vulnerable. That is an attractive component in what we call journalism.
Wikileaks fails on every standard of journalism. It bears no resemblance to reasoned journalism. It claim to be journalism is an obscenity. It has taken a raw product that could contribute to our knowledge of wrongs and released it without thought or consideration of consequences. Self-serving seems the only appropriate description of the site.
Activist and the self-serving are fellow travelers. That applies to Fox, CNBC, and a host of entities far more extreme. But mainstream media maintains at least minimal standards. The Internet doesn’t have such requirements. That’s fine for my little blog or many other sites. But that doesn’t always work to the common benefit as this example shows. Instead of contributing to the common good, it incites those seeking further limits on free speech from those who seek to control. And that is obscene.
Wiki is also another definition in TheFreeDictionary.com.
A collaborative website whose content can be edited by anyone who has access to it.
[Originally an abbreviation of WikiWikiWeb, software developed by American computer programmer Howard G. Cunningham (born 1949) : Hawaiian wikiwiki, quick + web.]
Wikileaks is itself a misnomer. Editing isn’t present and 'anyone' is limited to those with similar goals. That too is obscene.
Related posts:
Ken, I posted a response to your comment. When you have a moment. Thanks.