Amazon.com Widgets

Should whistleblowing organizations like WikiLeaks be allowed to thrive without criminal prosecution?

  • We have a right to know.

    Yes, whistleblowing organizations like WikiLeaks should be allowed to thrive without criminal prosecution, because modern governments have become very dangerous against their own people. Any more, the government of the United States sees regular citizens as its own enemy. People have a right to know that their government is spying on them.

  • Yes they should.

    I do believe that whistleblowing organizations like WikiLeaks should be allowed to thrive without criminal prosecution. This is freedom of speech at its best, and as citizens we have a right to know what our government is up to. It doesn't really matter how they get they got the information.

  • Yes They Should

    I believe whistle-blowing organizations like WikiLeaks should be allowed to thrive without criminal prosecution. These organizations seem to be pointing out information that the world finds interesting and they offering transparency when a government will not allow any. These organizations should be a clear indication to the governments they haunt, that secrecy is not an option.

  • Let WikiLeaks Thrive

    Wikileaks should thrive because of the freedom of information act. The freedom of information act is a government funded mandate in which there is the allowance of information to get transferred from intelligent sources to government entities. It is inconclusive if the intelligent information, however, should be relegated to the private citizens.

  • It is treason

    What happened with this website is simply treason, and they do not need to be allowed to thrive without some sort of criminal prosecution. This will help keep the secrets of our country safe, and make sure that we are not at risk of being taken advantage of by anyone.

  • My privacy matters more to me.

    Privacy. I don't want sensitive material that i send to someone getting hacked so someone else can try to ruin my reputation by adding or taking away from the original context. It is illegal and needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It has no place in our society.

  • Treason & dangerous

    Not if they feel they can chose OUR president by leaking damaging info about one candidate and not the other only because they dislike one of the candidates. This isn't freedom of information, it's someone trying to control/manipulate what happens by leaking only the info they deem important and suits their needs/desires.

  • No, it's dangerous

    For the people whose names are cited to prove the truthfulness of the displayed article. For their children and their family.
    Even if WikiLeaks does expose these documents and this facts, an element of privacy must still be maintained.
    WikiLeaks must be more tolerant and more respectful towards private citizens.

  • No, it's dangerous

    For the people whose names are cited to prove the truthfulness of the displayed article. For their children and their family.
    Even if WikiLeaks does expose these documents and this facts, an element of privacy must still be maintained.
    WikiLeaks must be more tolerant and more respectful towards private citizens.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.