Clinton came off as a classic passive aggressive - expressing utter bewilderment over Snowden: "I was puzzled because we have all these protections for whistleblowers.
An analysis of media interviews and articles shows that stakeholders who argue Snowden should be called a “hero” or “whistleblower” create that name for him by emphasizing in their talk how Snowden has sacrificed his own needs to protect the U. Snowden’s disclosure has yet to change a social context that favors government surveillance and secrecy over openness and transparency and a more limited interpretation of First Amendment rights.
It is hard to imagine that just one year ago, Edward Snowden famously walked away.
Nothing points to the importance of naming more than instances in which we seem unable to agree upon a name.
In our naming interactions, we create meaning, understanding, and a future.
There is no question that Snowden succeeded in forcing multiple task force investigations and a series of changes, including the claimed cessation of some aspects of these programmes.
What so many people around the world admire about Snowden is precisely what makes him such a hated figure within government.
Or should he be considered a “traitor” or “felon” whose actions jeopardize the U. democracy by publicizing secret NSA activities and increasing the country’s vulnerability to terrorist attacks? By disclosing the documents, Snowden is attempting to modify the balance by making the public aware of the NSA’s surveillance work so it can make informed decisions, as expected in a democracy run by the people, about whether the NSA activities should be permitted. But rather than debate that question as Snowden perhaps had hoped, politicians, government officials, and media commentators instead have been focusing on what name to give Snowden. Furthermore, naming Snowden a “hero” increases the likelihood that the public will listen to his message that the NSA surveillance programs are harming free speech and privacy rights. However, stakeholders who believe Snowden should be named a “traitor” create that name for him in their talk by claiming that Snowden is seeking personal gain or fame by revealing secrets to terrorists or enemy countries that could harm the U. From this point of view, the public should respond negatively to Snowden’s actions and condemn them.
In their talk about how to name Snowden, the politicians, officials, and commentators not only are trying to make sense of Snowden’s actions, but they also are creating a broader social context that may influence how the U. The classified documents raise the question of whether the NSA’s foreign and domestic surveillance activities are protecting or threatening the foundations upon which the U. His actions have also challenged their beliefs about how people named as “intelligence agency government contractors” should act. Also, in talking about Snowden as a “hero” or “whistleblower,” the politicians, officials, and commentators are creating a context for U. courts to shift the interpretation of the First Amendment away from the current one that values government secrecy and national security to one that promotes openness and transparency as the best way to maintain the U. Additionally, categorizing Snowden as a “villain” increases the chance that the public will ignore his message and maintain its current belief that increased government surveillance is the best way to protect the public interest. Some suggest that Congress allowed this to happen as a result of Snowden’s heroic actions.
Of course, that would still make it untrue, but he has never been investigated, let alone prosecuted.
While President Barack Obama would later insist that Snowden did not influence the various reforms implemented after his disclosure, few people believe that claim.