The lifeblood of a healthily functioning democratic society is the free flow of unadulterated true and factual information upon which decisions can be made with informed consensus.
I don't disagree, but is there such a society that exists today?
Seems to be a slippery slope. When divulging such information that exposes corruption, it's a great tool. When it puts operatives and civilian lives at risk, then it's not.
I just don't see a good way to go about it. Also, who gets to decide?
Anyway, great write-up. Plenty to think on.
Good question. It's certainly been an ideological goal and philosophical debate for many centuries, it forms part of the basis upon which the democratic system was founded, but we are still striving for such a society today, and for how much longer?
It is true that dissemination of sensitive data can endanger those to whom the information relates, but it doesn't need to be publicly released in order for their to be a safe means of raising the matter of concern without prejudice or persecution.
About what, the release of information/allegations, the final assessment of its legitimacy? I don't understand the context of your question.
Great points, this is the kind of discussion that needs to happen openly and often.
By "who gets to decide," within the context of:
Layer upon layer of safeguards and representative members seem to breed bloated bureaucracies. Trimming the fat could still provide the safe means you speak of, however I doubt the chances of that happening.
Simply put, who watches the watchers.
I agree, critical thought (which your post certainly requires!) and discussion need to happen. These are difficult topics and in my estimation missing between the general public and those chosen to undertake the task.