Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
bradgardsindianen
It may be that the estimatation is that it contain information that has the potential to harm an individual. For instance if the information disclosed in the hearing evolves around sb's activities but the activities is not of the quality to prosecute or similar. The "weight" of this type of grounds for secrecyclassfication, which is the heavier kind in swedish laws, elevates somewhat by prerequisite "if not of public interest". As what concerns an ordinary person there is however rarely any considerations of "public interest" to when the classified information may be leaked to for instance a journalist for the purpise of publication. (Leaking to other persons for other purposes, like tothe person's neighbours or employer is not however an "allowed" form of leakage. Hence in such cases, a leak for purpose of clandestine slander or what we shall label it as, it's difficult to claim the prohibition of inquiry (for the leak) which is for the puropse of protecting whistleblowers (who at a general level are presumed to faciliate the quality of public administration in a way).
Yes it may harm Kerstin Tegin-Gaddy and her associates. And yes it may be true that we have a long tradition of "shooting the messenger"(Whistleblower). Olof Palme was one of them who was unfortunately shot dead due to this old tradition.
""Shooting the messenger" is a metaphoric phrase used to describe the act of blaming the bearer of bad news.
Until the advent of modern telecommunication, messages were usually delivered by human envoys. For example, in war, a messenger would be sent from one camp to another. If the message was unfitting, the receiver might blame the messenger for such bad news and take their anger out on them.
"Shooting the messenger" is a subdivision of the ad hominem logical fallacy."
Wikipedia
