Freedom of discussion and access to government files and papers are amongst the foundation stones of democracies around the globe. However it is recognised widely that managed news through news feeds intended to assist public safety as when matters of great conflict are made clear is justified on balance so long as the facts are released at a later date when the community is cool and better able to apprehend the nature of the risks stemming from a particular concern. An example of this type of intervention is the use of censorship to steady the political climate back home when members of the forces for are engaged in high-level conflict with enemy forces. The legislature and the national press generally cooperate with the authorities so the staff of the armed forces and the public in general so such military campaigns can proceed without storms in the public domain and within the forces staff engaged in battle. Often due to the controversies of such news full details are not made available for many years to assist the peace process especially of importance in the case of fledgling democracies.
In the case of personal information much modern legislation makes it very difficult to reveal details such as a persons name and personal details such as staff reports, details of a personal nature such as family history and details including family trees. Transparency of this nature should be respected but details such as criminal charges and convictions are a controversial matter. The controversy associated with withholding such police records is sometimes justified when an individual needs a fresh start and needs secrecy of this kind to get a fair go from the public. However criminal charges associated with sexual crimes in Australia and some other countries are required to be notified to the public because of the need to protect children and other people. There are also other examples, which should be considered. For example the details of the natural parents of an adopted child are highly personal information and consequently there is often strongly opposed positions when considering transparency of this nature. Identifying the natural parents for an adoptee could well be the straw that broke the camels back and an unnecessary pressure given the difficulties often faced by those in this situation.
The ideal of absolute transparency in the public domain although often lauded has never been totally achieved. Human beings for example in public administration and those of public affairs are only human beings. This means that due to the sometimes-risky nature and uncertainty faced when making decisions, the performance of managers and legislators is assessed using standards that are unfairly too high to identify present and future performance. Another example also is the dilemma sometimes of personal histories, which could undermine a current success story despite the fact that an individual or firm had put the past behind them. In such circumstances there is not a balanced call about the qualities and performance of an individual or organisation concerned.
However there are exceptions to this generalisation. For example recently through the Internet I was able to locate a copy of the telephone directory of the US State Department. Such a document can be extremely helpful and assist enquirers to direct there questions pertaining to an individual country or region. The phone directory gave no names but extension numbers and virtually no explanation of the function and responsibility of each desk officer. Using that particular document was very unhelpful and the phone book then largely redundant. However when I recently approached the CIA offices in Washington I found very little help to direct a query except through what appeared to be a generic email address-one of several- that could have meant I would have received no reply but luckily I did. These examples of government failure to maintain a highly idealised form of openness may suffice most situations but what of an out of the blue disaster when communication to important areas of the US government is needed. However people in glasshouses should be careful as these examples of restrictions of information because of poor management or insincere commitment to open government also take place in Australia. Also web design and capacities are changed regularly in the case of major public and private organisations around the world so the circumstances identified such as discussed above are often only temporary in nature.
New issues of the regulation of the Internet have arisen and society is only just getting together great ideas to protect this technology. For example parental screening of sites for the benefit of children has been made possible through the use of settings and filters to prevent access to dangerous sites operating outside the law. Sharing wireless services to have access to the internet is also an area of concern as others may be able to listen in with the result all privacy has been lost and important confidential information made available to unauthorised people. A similar approach is used by some governments to preclude some satellite and cable television services into their countries by intervening directly through legislation to prevent extensive foreign competition to locals and also report of what is regarded as unsatisfactory political news.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental freedom but arranging time on a radio station, or debate in a legislature is often way beyond individuals with strongly justified complaints. It is sadly true that when a particular event has been gross, regulators and the media are reluctant to report it believing time will heal all wounds, because it’s a fact of life no one is perfect and some very imperfect and consequently the past is best put aside to rescue the situation. Such dangerous situations occur even in the policing responsibilities of the government because it becomes believed ideal procedures must be abandoned for the sake of the good of all. Absolute freedom to information through the media (including documents) has never been observed fully but the danger of ignoring review and change in this area when needed to support freedom and integrity if access to information is prevented. For example over regulated media and access to documents was an unfortunate feature of the apartheid era in South Africa. In this instance, which is very typical of over regulation, human rights suffered massively by a consistent hardline approach to make democracy in South Africa impossibility. We must all learn from that lesson.
Individuals when identifying poor ethical and performance issues are often attacked and can in some countries suffer imprisonment even if their criticism is based on accurate information and is a balanced call. Victimisation can occur directly to the person identifying the issues concerned to make others account for what has been done. Some countries have adopted (as in the case of Australia) protective legislation for whistle blowing of this kind. However although support like this is welcomed but the political process is far from perfect when wrong doing is made clear and consequently protection on offer to whistleblowers may be insufficient. Whistleblowers may be intending to help the rest of us but when altering the reputation of others but the price can be too high when those vulnerable to the criticism facedown their opponent.
Consequently discussion in Australia in the past few years has been focussing on the possibility of a human rights scheme at the national and state and territory levels to protect basic freedoms such as public discussion and access to public information as there is no equivalent for most jurisdictions through a charter concerning human rights but this situation looks likely to change because of the strong need observed to protect integrity in the public domain as well acknowledge the human rights especially of those facing down wrong doing and poor performance.
