The question has come up as to whether Matt Drudge's release of the information that Prince Harry was in combat in Afghanistan is protected freedom of speech, or whether it constitutes an act of treason. The argument for the latter goes that Prince Harry is a leader of one of our allies. He was fighting as much for the protection of the United States as he was for the protection of the United Kingdom. All the major networks apparently had this information, but didn't report it because they were asked not to. Even CNN and Fox News had this information and didn't report it. But the Drudge report, whether to get attention or for some ulterior motive, didn't hesitate to report it. Once the news was online, Al Qaeda started spreading the word, and the U.S. and Great Britain had to risk lives to get Prince Harry out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible. I am not a lawyer. I don't know if this was a criminal act. But I am firmly convinced that it is highly immoral, and I believe that it should be illegal. Drudge knowingly endangered Prince Harry, those he served with, and those who had to get him out of the country. Anytime anyone knowingly endangers someone else who is acting legally, there should be some recourse to charges of criminal negligence at the very least. Shouldn't they? Morally, the question is easier to answer. I can't imagine any morally sensitive person being able to live with themselves if they did something like this.
2 comments:
I felt very strongly about this when I heard it as well. I also share your feelings about it. Another thing I thought about was how the prince must feel to not be able to serve his country and help. He was doing something he thought was right, being a devoted military man and it was taken away from, without a choice. He must be very frustrated.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
Post a Comment