A Serious Offense to Freedom

“My understanding is that espionage means giving secret or classified information to the enemy. Since Snowden shared information with the American people, his indictment for espionage could reveal (or confirm) that the U.S. Government views you and me as the enemy,” stated former U.S. Republican representative and ex-presidential candidate Ron Paul.

Historically, the major “leakers,” as Mairangela Paone calls them, have performed a great service by promoting the truth. Daniel Ellsberg, who was responsible for leaking the so-called Pentagon Papers in 1971, helped accelerate the end of the idiotic Vietnam War. Mark Felt, Deep Throat, leaked information regarding Watergate to the Washington Post. Frederic Whitehurst denounced irregularities at the FBI crime laboratory. Bradley Manning, a soldier assigned to Iraq, released State Department classified reports to WikiLeaks.

Now Edward Snowden, a former CIA contractor, leaked information about mass surveillance by the White House. Very popular in Chinese public opinion, his departure from Hong Kong to Moscow prevented a greater exposure of the Chinese authorities. According to a USA TODAY/Pew Research Center Poll, 49 percent of the public thinks that Snowden’s revelations served the public interest and 44 percent disagree. At the same time, only 54 percent think that Washington should prosecute the whistle-blower. When it comes to the usefulness of collecting telephone and Internet data in the fight against terrorism, 48 percent approved and 47 percent disapproved.

We want “…the law to be enforced,” Obama said referring to Snowden’s capture. In addition, according to Steffen W. Schmidt, a professor at Iowa State University, absolute freedom is not possible. We’ll see what the U.S. government will do [when] it perceives a serious offense to liberty, and thus morality, life and public safety. Using the excuse that absolute freedom — which really only God has — is not possible, shows bad intentions because even if freedom is not absolute, it doesn’t mean that it should be restricted.

If this is the law, then it should be repealed immediately because it violates the natural order, so then “it is more iniquity than law,” like Saint Thomas said. The natural order doesn’t imply that humans must be absolutely free, but it means that humans should not be coerced (violated), because violence always destroys nature, and diverts its spontaneous natural development, since it represents an extrinsic force.

So, those who say that they will defend freedom violently (with coercion) are its worst enemies. Yes, freedom’s worst enemies, because they use it under false pretense to introduce violence, which will inevitably destroy it.

The only defense that digital freedom needs is to avoid, disregard, ignore and not fear violence, which is its main enemy. For example, World War II not only failed to put an end to tyranny, but also replaced Nazis with the more powerful Stalinists, who erected the Berlin Wall, later torn down, not by nuclear superpowers, but by the actions of moral persons like John Paul II. Without WWII, the world would be a freer and more secure place today.