The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
According to New York congressman Peter King that is.
I`m not sure I agree, but what are your thoughts? And do you think Wikileaks should continue to release highly classified secrets (like the one below) even if it damages national security and puts lives at risk.
Among the most embarrassing information was a memo from the U.S. embassy in London describing how a Labour minister was forced to apologise for sexually harrassing a female.
I`m not sure I agree, but what are your thoughts? And do you think Wikileaks should continue to release highly classified secrets (like the one below) even if it damages national security and puts lives at risk.
Among the most embarrassing information was a memo from the U.S. embassy in London describing how a Labour minister was forced to apologise for sexually harrassing a female.
Always bugged me about free speech. It's all well and good in principle, but why should people have to hear it?
I mean, feel free to say what you want, but harming people by speaking is possible. Speak to yourself. In a corner. Somewhere else.
But slightly off topic..
I mean, feel free to say what you want, but harming people by speaking is possible. Speak to yourself. In a corner. Somewhere else.
But slightly off topic..
If by "Terrorist organisation" you mean an organisation that isn't working in the US' interests then yes they are. I'll get into this in more depth later but I don't see much difference between this and investigative journalism. It's hypocritical of the US, they champion free speech at any cost but how quickly they turn when it's something they don't want to hear.
Bottom line, how would you like every single person in the world to know your mistakes? Ones that could effect your life and the lives of your loved ones?
That's why they are understandably upset.
Freedom of speech is fine, but I think it really needs to be used in a manner that is morally correct. Putting this information out to embarass people is just wrong. If it was required, and did some good, then who knows?
And as if we need more evidence that the government officials across the world are mere humans who make mistakes. :S
That's why they are understandably upset.
Freedom of speech is fine, but I think it really needs to be used in a manner that is morally correct. Putting this information out to embarass people is just wrong. If it was required, and did some good, then who knows?
And as if we need more evidence that the government officials across the world are mere humans who make mistakes. :S
It's understandable that they want to silence sites like that, every thing they do wrong or unjustly will be out in the open instead of kept under wraps.
According to New York congressman Peter King that is.
I`m not sure I agree, but what are your thoughts? And do you think Wikileaks should continue to release highly classified secrets (like the one below) even if it damages national security and puts lives at risk.
Among the most embarrassing information was a memo from the U.S. embassy in London describing how a Labour minister was forced to apologise for sexually harrassing a female.
I`m not sure I agree, but what are your thoughts? And do you think Wikileaks should continue to release highly classified secrets (like the one below) even if it damages national security and puts lives at risk.
Among the most embarrassing information was a memo from the U.S. embassy in London describing how a Labour minister was forced to apologise for sexually harrassing a female.