Edward Snowden, a computer expert and former CIA administrator, released confidential Government documents to the press about the existence of Government surveillance programmes. According to many legal experts and the US Government, his action violated the Espionage act of 1971, which identified the leak of State secret as an act of treason. Yet, despite the fact that he broke the law, Snowden argued that he had a moral obligation to act. He gave a justification for his “whistle blowing” by stating that he had a duty “to inform the public as to that which is done in there name and that which is done against them.” According to Snowden, the Government’s violation of privacy had to be exposed regardless of legality since more substantive issues of social action and public morality were involved here. Many agreed with Snowden. Few argued that he broke the law and compromised national security, for which he should be held accountable. Do you agree that Snowden’s actions were ethically justified even if legally prohibited? Why or why not? Make an argument by weighing the competing values in this case.
This question is available to read here. The practice button generates a fresh question from the same paper. Here, practise an answer plan in keywords. Choose your timer on the next screen. Feedback uses our common 15-point practice rubric, rather than the paper’s original mark allocation.
On September 21, 2026, major US news organizations including CNN, MS NOW, and Politico announced a joint legal challenge against the White House following the revocation of press credentials for several journalists. The outlets contend that the administration's actions constitute an unconstitutional infringement on the First Amendment, which guarantees the freedom of the press. The lawsuit seeks to establish a legal precedent that prevents the executive branch from exercising arbitrary control over which organizations can report on government activities, emphasizing the principle that the government should not dictate the scope of press coverage.
At the seventy-second National Film Awards ceremony held at Ekta Nagar near the Statue of Unity, President Droupadi Murmu commended the Indian cinema industry for its expansive cultural reach while issuing a sharp caution against endorsing harmful health products. Emphasizing that a true star spreads light rather than darkness, the President highlighted the profound moral and social responsibilities borne by public figures whose commercial choices directly shape public health, impressionable youth, and societal values.
On September 25, 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of YouTuber Ajeet Bharti regarding a complaint filed under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court held that a prima facie case was established, which triggered the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Act, preventing the court from granting pre-arrest bail. This decision reinforces the legal threshold for protecting marginalized communities from hate speech and discriminatory rhetoric under special legislation, balancing fundamental freedoms with constitutional obligations to uphold human dignity and prevent social oppression.