The difficulty in taking a side on a debate like this inevitably boils down to one simple question: who gets to be the guardian of society?

On one hand, Snowden’s actions are heroic; he exposed a massive governmental infraction against the democratic spirit of our country. On the other hand, though, Snowden’s actions are nothing short of seditious; he revealed to our national enemies the secrets and scope of  America’s surveillance program.

So which hand do you hold?

If you think of Snowden as a gallant crusader for people’s individual liberties and the sacrosanct right to privacy, then you probably view the media (and journalists in general) as the the guardians of society. They are the ones who protect us from corruption by ousting inept officials and lambasting them in the press. They are the ones who reveal the wrongdoings of massive corporations and make clear the avarice of the 1%. And they are the ones who provide the fodder for cultural discussion and artistic advancement.

All of these are true, and they are useful (even necessary) aspects of journalists as they stand now – the guardians of our society. But even they need limits. And these limits are pushed when they trespass into the realms of the other guardian of society – our government.

If you believe in our government as a bastion of liberal, democratic ideals who will always look out for the downtrodden in the Land of the Free (or at least, if you believe government can or should do that), then it’s difficult to see how a whistleblower like Snowden is helping the cause. On issues of national security, the government has to do what it must in order to protect its citizens. No one voted for Snowden; he has no right revealing national secrets and potentially endangering the lives of Americans at home and abroad.

Whether the guardians will be our politicians or our columnists is up to us; we’d better make the right decision.

 

Written by Aaron Mayer