Should we know EVERYTHING?

The first amendment of the US constitution (a good one in my estimation), is very explicit. It prohibits:
"the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances"

It is, however, 223 years old, and cannot have accounted for all sorts of infringements of privacy (which is not part of the US constitiution): so I ask this question:

Is it still valid?

I think it is. Completely. And my reasoning is that it separates us - and by that, I include most of the Western world - from those that, while possibly rich (China springs to mind), have no method for rendering truth to the people they govern, other than a "government version". Truth? Version? Seems like an oxymoron to me.

I was always taught that truth is what we all search for; which would suggest that a "communist university" is also an oxymoron, but it's not. If you're a scientist, chances are that you'll be left to do your own thing; but if you're an artist, or a musician...

And if, like me, you're interested in truth, then secrecy - in any form - is anathema. Tactically, in time of war, I can understand it; but for 50 years after? Per-lease. That's for reputations; not national security.

A recent example of real first amendment rights, on a small scale, came up with the TMZ footage of the Ray Rice elevator "incident". I'm a big NFL fan so it forced me to look again at my thoughts on the business of free speech and truth. And they haven't changed.
Ray Rice has since married the girl involved, so I doubt whether we'll ever know the truth about that particular incident (at least, not until they divorce; and maybe not even then - more secrecy), but thank God for TMZ (in this case), and for the amendment that allows them to exist.

You may not like the "news-hounds" or "paparazzi" it creates; but just occasionally it reminds you why it's there.

Winston

I don't think truth and secrecy are opposites. I'm perfectly fine with not all truths being widely known; IMO there are good reasons for all sorts of facts not being publicized - national security, protection of minors, protection of victims, privacy etc. I furthermore don't think that first amendment rights should allow the dissemination of facts that are otherwise protected or the dissemination of which is prohibited by law (I'm not sure whether they do; apparently so).

As regards that video, frankly, it disgusts me that it's out there. It should have been made available to police and prosecution -as I understand it has been all along-, and they should have taken appropriate steps (which I understand they did). If that was the end of it because the prosecution was not legally obliged to prosecute if the future Ms. Rice did not want to press charges - so be it. I find it ethically problematic for a professional association to discipline its members to standards higher than those which the criminal justice system applies by law. (Even more so if a single person -the commissioner- can apparently make decisions on those standards, but that's besides the point. Although I suppose I might relent on that if being offered the kind of salary many members make :-).

To make my position clear: I'm not defending what Rice did, it's sickening. And I'm aware that victims of domestic violence may not walk out (immediately or at all) for any number of reasons. But IMO that's not enough reason to try it in public court by publicizing the video. Case in point: currently it seems to me that US foreign policy has been majorly influenced by the reaction to the publication of two videos of US citizens meeting a grizzly end. This has happened in an area of the world where lots of (civilian) citizens of the US and other countries have been getting killed for many years now, in the same or other ways. The fact that the mere publication of these videos can sway the highest levels of government into action -where otherwise it would not act- is not a good sign as to what kinds of influence the dissemination of facts can have.

...you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free? I think it's a fine line, and needs to be trodden carefully.

What is wrong with a professional body requiring higher standards than the civil law? There is no law against seducing a person, as long as they are “consenting adults”. There is however a professional standard against a doctor seducing a patient, because the doctor‑patient relationship would lead to that seduction constituting abuse of a position of power and trust.

Ulf Dittmer wrote:I don't think truth and secrecy are opposites.

Me neither, but they're darn close; so it seems to me that we need a lot of safeguards to ensure that those keeping the secrets really are working on OUR behalf. There are many branches of government and the military - not to mention corporations - to whom secrets are a norm, and "self-justifying". I don't agree with that, and never will.

At the risk of violating Godwin's Law, I'd also say that secrets are a primary tool of totalitarian regimes, whose main concern is to keep their populations "barefoot and ignorant", so it seems to me that it's the duty of democracies to show the way when it comes to disclosure. And having a well-organized, aggressive, and constitutionally protected press - not to mention a few Rushdis and Solzhenitsyns - is a small price to pay to keep the "secret-keepers" in line.

Winston

Winston Gutkowski wrote:Me neither, but they're darn close; so it seems to me that we need a lot of safeguards to ensure that those keeping the secrets really are working on OUR behalf...

I have (what I think is) a "quite interesting" example of precisely what I'm talking about.

I'm currently listening to the Tallis Scholars' version of Gregorio Allegri's "Miserere"; a piece of music that - while I remain a confirmed sceptic - lets me think sometimes that there just might be a God.

And if it had been left up to the church, we would never have known about it.

Thank God(?) for Mozart - our first "investigative reporter"? - who memorized it, and wrote it down for posterity.

Winston