Edward Snowden Debate

On September 5, 2015 former National Security Agency (NSA) employee Edward Snowden was officially awarded the Norwegian Academy of Literature and Freedom of Expression Bjornson Prize. Snowden infamously leaked classified files from the NSA, ones that revealed that the agency had been gathering private data on United States citizens, as well as the members of the international community. Since then, Snowden has been charged with espionage and forced to seek asylum in Russia, where he currently resides. To some, he is a hero. He blew the whistle on government violations of civil rights and helped preserve the constitution. To others, Snowden is a villain. He is a detriment to national security, someone who deserves to be vilified and convicted of treason. The conflict stems in part from different beliefs regarding freedom of expression and whether Snowden had the right to reveal such evidence. In deciding whether Snowden’s actions are justified, however, it is crucial to further examine the fundamental right of free speech. Through analyses of the philosophical, political and individual rationales behind free expression, theorist critiques and comments on the concept, and one’s personal beliefs, one can demonstrate the importance of free speech and its need to be appreciated. There are three fundamental reasons for freedom of expression. The first is philosophical,

Ingrained in human nature is the desire to express one’s ideas, whether it is through writing, singing, poetry, or other means. In fact, the basis of the individual argument for free expression is that “we must have liberty of expression if life is to be worth living” (Herbeck and Tedford 416). Even if the audience disagrees with one’s comments, it is the mere act of stating one’s views that is relevant. Thus, it remains the crucial right of citizens to express themselves in a self-satisfactorily