DOCSLIB.ORG

Qanon: Into the Rabbit Hole

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Qanon: Into the Rabbit Hole QAnon: Into the Rabbit Hole A Deep Dive Into a “Conspiracy” in Times of Turmoil A MASTER THESIS BY: Kristinna Larsen & Rósa Tindskard Culture, Communication and Globalization Aalborg University Supervisor: Robert Christian Thomsen Abstract The phenomenon of ‘QAnon’ took the world by storm after the insurrection on the United States Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021, and as a topic of discussion, it was almost inescapable on the news. Everyone was curious and concerned as to what QAnon was, who ‘Q’ was, and why people were drawn to QAnon. The sensationalism surrounding QAnon stems from years of looming on social media, growing in size and popularity to the point of reaching previous president Donald Trump’s attention. The identity of the ‘Q’ persona is still a mystery at this time of writing; however, QAnon is not made up of one person, but describes a community of adherents believing in various conspiracy theories which targets many different areas and people. For centuries, conspiracy theories have been part of society, yet with QAnon it is difficult to pin down its conspiratorial features compared to what is known as classic conspiracy theories. We see public support of the conspiracy theory by political figures, voicing pro-QAnon rhetoric, disregarding the conspiracy theory’s very anti-democrat and anti-establishment beliefs. This body of work seeks to explore the world of QAnon. Our problem formulation for this thesis will be answered by analysing from three different perspectives. Firstly, we examine which theoretical categories QAnon can be described as, and attempt to describe its conspiratorial element; an area which concludes that QAnon shares many similarities with Rosenblum and Muirhead’s theory of new conspiracism, social movements, religious doctrines as well as our own construction: ‘conspiracy narrative’. Secondly, we look into the relationship between QAnon and social media; a relationship leading us to conclude that QAnon and social media are deeply intertwined with each other, where QAnon’s emergence from the beginning to its popularity today can be attributed primarily to social media, and internet based concepts such as echo chambers, filter bubbles and hashtag hijackings. Lastly, we examine the role of social and political polarisation, and discuss what it means to have a conspiratorial President in the White House. We conclude that the environment in which QAnon thrives is created by social and political polarisation, and that having a conspiratorial president in power does surprisingly little for QAnon, compared to the impact of Trumpism which is indicative of the current political decay. Keywords: QAnon, social media, polarization, conspiracism, Donald Trump 2 Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Problem Formulation ............................................................................................................................ 4 3. Theory ................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Brotherton: Key Features of a Conspiracy Theory ................................................................. 6 3.1.1. Context ....................................................................................................................................... 6 3.1.2. Content ....................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1.3 Epistemic Rationale ................................................................................................................... 8 3.2. Rosenblum and Muirhead: Classic Conspiracism and New Conspiracism ................................ 9 3.2.1. Conspiracism and Epistemic Standard ................................................................................. 10 3.2.2. Figure 1: Classic Conspiracism and New Conspiracism ..................................................... 11 2.3. Echo Chamber and Filter Bubble ................................................................................................. 13 2.4. Hashtag Hijacking ......................................................................................................................... 15 2.5. Hellinger and the Trumpian Age .................................................................................................. 17 2.6. Richard Hofstadter: The Paranoid Style of American Politics.................................................. 18 2.7. Theoretical Scope ........................................................................................................................... 20 2.8. Literature review ........................................................................................................................... 21 2.8.1. Academic Scepticism ............................................................................................................... 21 2.8.2. The Political History Behind Conspiracism in the US ......................................................... 22 2.8.3. Comments on Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles .............................................................. 23 2.8.4. What academia defines QAnon as ......................................................................................... 26 2.8.5. On Polarisation ........................................................................................................................ 27 4. Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 28 4.1. Categorising Conspiracism ........................................................................................................... 28 4.1.1. Conspiracism: Distinctive Terms .......................................................................................... 29 4.1.2. Figure 2: Elements of Conspiracism ..................................................................................... 30 4.2. The analytical process .................................................................................................................... 30 4.2.1. Analysis: comparing labels and features............................................................................... 32 4.3. Limitations ...................................................................................................................................... 33 4.4. Addressing QAnon’s adherents .................................................................................................... 34 4.5. Data Treatment .............................................................................................................................. 35 3 5. Empirical Data ..................................................................................................................................... 36 5.1. Statistic by Gallup on presidential job approval ratings ............................................................ 36 5.2. CNN video: Biden’s inauguration led to mom escaping QAnon ............................................... 37 5.3. CNN video: Former QAnon follower explains why she left the movement .............................. 37 5.4. Twitter Screenshots from August 15 and October 31, 2020 ....................................................... 37 6. Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 38 6.1. Which theoretical categories can be used to describe QAnon? ................................................. 39 6.1.1. Robert Brotherton’s Conspiracy Criteria ............................................................................ 39 6.1.1.1. Context .................................................................................................................................. 39 6.1.1.2. Content .................................................................................................................................. 42 6.1.1.3. Sub conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 43 6.2. New Conspiracism and Classic Conspiracism ............................................................................. 43 6.2.1. QAnon’s development as a Conspiracy Narrative ............................................................... 44 6.2.2. Figure 3: A visual Overview of Classic Conspiracism and New Conspiracism................. 46 6.2.3. A Social movement? ................................................................................................................ 48 6.2.4. Sub conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 51 6.3. Conspiracy Narrative, or Something Entirely Different? .......................................................... 52 6.4. ‘Q’ Works in Mysterious Ways .................................................................................................... 53 6.5. Epistemic Standard: Believing is Belonging ................................................................................ 55 6.5.1. Sub Conclusion
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Free, Hateful, and Posted: Rethinking First Amendment Protection of Hate Speech in a Social Media World
    Boston College Law Review Volume 60 Issue 7 Article 6 10-30-2019 Free, Hateful, and Posted: Rethinking First Amendment Protection of Hate Speech in a Social Media World Lauren E. Beausoleil Boston College Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the First Amendment Commons, and the Internet Law Commons Recommended Citation Lauren E. Beausoleil, Free, Hateful, and Posted: Rethinking First Amendment Protection of Hate Speech in a Social Media World, 60 B.C.L. Rev. 2100 (2019), https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol60/iss7/6 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FREE, HATEFUL, AND POSTED: RETHINKING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION OF HATE SPEECH IN A SOCIAL MEDIA WORLD Abstract: Speech is meant to be heard, and social media allows for exaggeration of that fact by providing a powerful means of dissemination of speech while also dis- torting one’s perception of the reach and acceptance of that speech. Engagement in online “hate speech” can interact with the unique characteristics of the Internet to influence users’ psychological processing in ways that promote violence and rein- force hateful sentiments. Because hate speech does not squarely fall within any of the categories excluded from First Amendment protection, the United States’ stance on hate speech is unique in that it protects it.
    [Show full text]
  • The Public Life of Secrets: Deception, Disclosure, and Discursive Framing in the Policy Process
    STXXXX10.1177/0735275115587388Sociological TheoryBail 587388research-article2015 Original Article Sociological Theory 2015, Vol. 33(2) 97 –124 The Public Life of Secrets: © American Sociological Association 2015 DOI: 10.1177/0735275115587388 Deception, Disclosure, and stx.sagepub.com Discursive Framing in the Policy Process Christopher A. Bail1 Abstract While secrecy enables policy makers to escape public scrutiny, leaks of classified information reveal the social construction of reality by the state. I develop a theory that explains how leaks shape the discursive frames states create to communicate the causes of social problems to the public and corresponding solutions to redress them. Synthesizing cultural sociology, symbolic interactionism, and ethnomethodology, I argue that leaks enable non– state actors to amplify contradictions between the public and secret behavior of the state. States respond by “ad hoc–ing” new frames that normalize their secret transgressions as logical extensions of other policy agendas. While these syncretic responses resolve contradictions exposed by leaks, they gradually detach discursive frames from reality and therefore increase states’ need for secrecy—as well as the probability of future leaks—in turn. I illustrate this downward spiral of deception and disclosure via a case study of the British government’s discourse about terrorism between 2000 and 2008. Keywords cultural sociology, political sociology, secrecy, symbolic interactionism, comparative- historical sociology “For in the order of things it is found that one never seeks to avoid one inconvenience without running into another.” —Machiavelli (The Prince, chapter 21) A vast literature explains how policy makers shape public understandings of social problems in order to accomplish their agenda (e.g., Alexander and Smith 1993; Berezin 1997; Jacobs and Sobieraj 2007; Reed 2013; Skrentny 2004; Somers and Block 2005; Spillman 1997; Steensland 2007; Wagner-Pacifici 1994).
    [Show full text]
  • What Echo Chamber? Reviewing the Evidence
    Echo Chamber? What Echo Chamber? Reviewing the Evidence Prof. Axel Bruns Digital Media Research Centre Queensland University of Technology Brisbane, Australia [email protected] @snurb_dot_info Abstract The success of political movements that appear to be immune to any factual evidence that contradicts their claims – from the Brexiteers to the ‘alt‐right’, neo‐fascist groups supporting Donald Trump – has reinvigorated claims that social media spaces constitute so‐called ‘filter bubbles’ or ‘echo chambers’. But while such claims may appear intuitively true to politicians and journalists – who have themselves been accused of living in filter bubbles (Bradshaw 2016) –, the evidence that ordinary users experience their everyday social media environments as echo chambers is far more limited. For instance, a 2016 Pew Center study has shown that only 23% of U.S. users on Facebook and 17% on Twitter now say with confidence that most of their contacts’ views are similar to their own. 20% have changed their minds about a political or social issue because of interactions on social media (Duggan and Smith 2016). Similarly, large‐scale studies of follower and interaction networks on Twitter (e.g. Bruns et al., 2014) show that national Twitterspheres are often thoroughly interconnected and facilitate the flow of information across boundaries of personal ideology and interest, except for a few especially hardcore partisan communities. Building on new, comprehensive data from a project that maps and tracks interactions between 4 million accounts in the Australian Twittersphere, this paper explores in detail the evidence for the existence of echo chambers in that country. It thereby moves the present debate beyond a merely anecdotal footing, and offers a more reliable assessment of the ‘echo chamber’ threat.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers: the Integrative Potential of the Internet Mahrt, Merja
    www.ssoar.info Beyond Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers: The Integrative Potential of the Internet Mahrt, Merja Erstveröffentlichung / Primary Publication Habilitationsschrift / habilitation treatise Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Mahrt, M. (2019). Beyond Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers: The Integrative Potential of the Internet. (Digital Communication Research, 5). Berlin. https://doi.org/10.17174/dcr.v5.0 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer CC BY Lizenz (Namensnennung) zur This document is made available under a CC BY Licence Verfügung gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zu den CC-Lizenzen finden (Attribution). For more Information see: Sie hier: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.de Mahrt Are online audiences today fragmented into echo chambers or ilter Merja Mahrt bubbles? Do users only see what digital platforms (like search engines or social media) let them see? And if so, what are the consequences for the cohesion of a society? Concerns like these abound in recent years. They attest to widely held assumptions about a negative inluence of digital media or even the Internet in general on society. Empirical stud- ies on these phenomena are, however, not as unequivocal. To under- stand why results from previous research are so far inconclusive, this study investigates the role of the Internet for social integration from a more general point of view. The integrative potential of the Internet is assessed to compare it with other media and ultimately better understand to what degree and due to which factors the Internet may or may not help bring society to- Beyond Filter Bubbles gether.
    [Show full text]
  • Writing About Espionage Secrets
    Secrecy and Society ISSN: 2377-6188 Volume 2 Number 1 Secrecy and Intelligence Article 7 September 2018 Writing About Espionage Secrets Kristie Macrakis Georgia Tech, Atlanta, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/secrecyandsociety Part of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine Commons, and the Other History Commons Recommended Citation Macrakis, Kristie. 2018. "Writing About Espionage Secrets." Secrecy and Society 2(1). https://doi.org/10.31979/2377-6188.2018.020107 https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/ secrecyandsociety/vol2/iss1/7 This Special Issue Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Information at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Secrecy and Society by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Writing About Espionage Secrets Abstract This article describes the author’s experiences researching three books on espionage history in three different countries and on three different topics. The article describes the foreign intelligence arm of the Ministry for State Security; a global history of secret writing from ancient to modern times; and finally, my current project on U.S. intelligence and technology from the Cold War to the War on Terror. The article also discusses the tensions between national security and openness and reflects on the results of this research and its implications for history and for national security. Keywords Central Intelligence Agency, CIA,
    [Show full text]
  • National Security Secrecy: How the Limits Change
    Steven Aftergood National Security Secrecy: How the Limits Change as a nation, we seem to be of two minds about secrecy. we know that government secrecy is incompatible with democratic decision-making in obvious ways. By definition, secrecy limits access to official information, thereby impeding public participation in the deliberative process and inhibiting or preventing the accountability of government officials for their actions. Yet there is a near universal consensus that some measure of secrecy is justified and necessary to protect authorized national security activities, such as intelligence gathering and military operations, to permit confidential deliberations in the course of policy development, to secure personal privacy, and for other reasons. Reconciling these conflicting interests is an ongoing challenge. A stable secrecy policy is hard to achieve since the proper boundaries of offi- cial secrecy cannot be clearly articulated in the abstract and tend to shift over time. In practice, decisions to restrict information seem to depend on prevailing security considerations (secrecy is more pronounced in time of war), official predispositions (some political leaders favor secrecy more than others), and public attitudes and expectations. In recent years, a large and growing number of public interest organizations and professional societies have turned their attention to government secrecy, identifying it as an obstacle to achieving their own objectives. In fact, there are at least two entire coalitions of organiza- tions devoted to combating secrecy: Openthegovernment.org and the Research for this paper was supported by grants from the Foundation to Promote Open Society, the HKH Foundation, the CS Fund, the Stewart R. Mott Foundation, and the Rockefeller Family Fund.
    [Show full text]
  • "Area 51: an Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base," Annie Jacobsen (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2011)
    Journal of Strategic Security Volume 4 Number 3 Volume 4, No. 3: Fall 2011 Article 8 "Area 51: An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base," Annie Jacobsen (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2011) Edward M. Roche Henley-Putnam University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss Part of the Defense and Security Studies Commons, National Security Law Commons, and the Portfolio and Security Analysis Commons pp. 73-74 Recommended Citation Roche, Edward M.. ""Area 51: An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base," Annie Jacobsen (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2011)." Journal of Strategic Security 4, no. 3 (2011) : 73-74. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.4.3.7 Available at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol4/iss3/8 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Access Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Strategic Security by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. "Area 51: An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base," Annie Jacobsen (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2011) This book review is available in Journal of Strategic Security: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss/ vol4/iss3/8 Roche: "Area 51: An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Area 51: An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base. By Annie Jacobsen. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2011. ISBN: 978-0-316-13294-7. Photographs.
    [Show full text]
  • Extraterrestrial Life Craft Instructions
    What’s Fact and Fiction @ Area 51? Area 51 is a secret United States Air Force military base located at Groom Lake in Southern Nevada and was built in 1955. This facility has been the focus of many conspiracy theories involving extraterrestrial life (alien lifeforms), though the official information confirms the base as being a flight-testing facility. The official name for Area 51 is the Nevada Test and Training Range. The name, Area 51, came from its geo- graphical location on a map. Aerial photo of Area 51 Gate at Area 51 Some people believe that Area 51 is a site where government officials have performed experiments with extrater- restrials and their spacecrafts. Others believe that the moon landing in 1969 was fake and was filmed right here on Earth at Area 51. Over the years the CIA, Air Force, and aerospace company Lockheed Martin, have all used Area 51 as a staging ground for test flights of experimental aircraft. According to documents declassified in 2007, in the 1950s and 1960s Area 51 was used as a site for top-secret Cold War-era program known as Oxcart. The purpose of Oxcart’s program was to develop a spy plane that would be undetectable in the air and could be used for gathering information on the Soviet Union. This spy-place called the Archangel-12, was eventually developed at Area 51. The A -12 could travel speeds of more than 2,000 miles an hour and take clear pictures of objects on the ground from high altitudes. These spy planes developed at Area 51 may resemble people’s idea of what alien spacecrafts could look like, which helps explain why so many people reported UFO sightings in the skies above Nevada over the years.
    [Show full text]
  • National Security and Statutory Interpretation
    SMU Law Review Volume 53 Issue 1 Article 9 2000 Through a Looking Glass Darkly: National Security and Statutory Interpretation Jonathan Turley Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Jonathan Turley, Through a Looking Glass Darkly: National Security and Statutory Interpretation, 53 SMU L. REV. 205 (2000) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol53/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. THROUGH A LOOKING GLASS DARKLY: NATIONAL SECURITY AND STATUTORY INTERPRETATION Jonathan Turley* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................ 206 II. AREA 51: A CASE STUDY OF THE GRAVITATIONAL EFFECT OF THE COMMON LAW ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY AREA ......................... 210 A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND .............................. 210 B. RELEVANT LEGAL ARGUMENTS AND JUDICIAL R ULINGS .............................................. 214 C. THE GRAVITATIONAL EFFECT OF THE COMMON LAW PRIVILEGE ON THE ANALYSIS IN KASZA AND FRosT ................................................. 219 III. THE INTERPLAY OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AND THE COMMON LAW IN THE AREA 51 LITIGATION ............................ 221 A. THEORIES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IN THE COMPANY OF THE COMMON LAW ..................... 222 B. PREEMPTION AND JUDICIAL CHOICE: THE USE OF COMMON LAW AS AN OUTCOME-DETERMINATIVE ELEMENT IN THE FROST CASE ........................ 228 C. THE ADOPTION OF AN ABSOLUTE STATE SECRETS PRIVILEGE IN THE AREA 51 LITIGATION .............. 231 IV. THE LEGISPRUDENCE OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE COMMON LAW ............................. 237 A. THE DIALOGIC EFFECT OF THE COMMON LAW IN THE AREA OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ..............
    [Show full text]
  • Echo Chambers
    Echo Chambers J. Anthony Cookson, Joseph E. Engelberg and William Mullins* October 7, 2020 Abstract We find evidence of selective exposure to confirmatory information among 300,000 users on the investor social network StockTwits. Self-described bulls are 5 times more likely to follow a user with a bullish view of the same stock than self-described bears. This tendency exists even among professional investors and is strongest for investors who trade on their beliefs. Selective exposure generates differences in the newsfeeds of bulls and bears: over a 50-day period, a bull will see 70 more bullish messages and 15 fewer bearish messages than a bear over the same period. Moreover, beliefs formed in these “echo-chambers” are associated with lower ex- post returns. Finally, we show that selective exposure creates “information silos” in which the diversity of received signals is high across users’ newsfeeds but is low within users’ newsfeeds and that this siloing of information is positively related to trading volume. *Cookson is at the Leeds School of Business at University of Colorado-Boulder ([email protected]). En- gelberg is at the Rady School of Management, UC San Diego ([email protected]). Mullins is at the Rady School of Management, UC San Diego ([email protected]). This draft has benefited from workshop and conference presentations at Georgetown University, Finance in the Cloud III, University of Colorado, and UC San Diego. 1 Introduction Traditional models in finance – where investors have common priors, observe the same public sig- nals, and update their beliefs according to Bayes’ rule – have a difficult time explaining the high trading volume observed in financial markets.
    [Show full text]
  • Vilja Veta: Konspirationsteorier
    ARBETSMATERIAL FÖR ELEVEN TOMAS DÖMSTEDT Vilja veta: Konspirationsteorier ORDLISTA minoritet (sida 11, rad 5) liten grupp opålitlig (sida 19, rad 2) går inte att lita på tsar (sida 21, rad 1) titel för tidigare ledare i Ryssland förfalskning (sida 21, rad 9) inte äkta diktatur (sida 23, rad 12) land där det inte finns demokrati eller frihet sammansvärjning (sida 25, rad 8) samarbete med syfte att begå brott Finns det andra ord som är nya för dig? Skriv dem, slå upp dem och skriv förklaringar. Arbeta med ordlistan 1. Gå tillbaka till boken. Läs meningarna där orden i ordlistan finns. Förklara med egna ord vad meningarna betyder. 2. Skriv en egen mening med varje ord i ordlistan. 3. Förklara följande ord från boken så att någon som inte har läst den kan förstå: konspiration konspirationsteori syndabock antisemitism biologiska vapen manifest – lättläst för vuxna • www.nyponochviljaforlag.se 1 TOMAS DÖMSTEDT Vilja veta: Konspirationsteorier GRAMMATIK Verb Verb är ord som beskriver vad någon gör, t.ex. ”läser”, ”skriver”, ”leker”. Stryk under verben i följande meningar. I vissa meningar finns det flera verb. 1. De som tror på en konspirationsteori, tror ofta på fler än en teori. 2. Den franska revolutionen 1789 var ett folkligt uppror. 3. De styr världen i hemlighet. 4. Raketen störtade och han dog. 5. Bermudatriangeln kallas även Dödens triangel eller Atlantens kyrkogård. 6. Myten om en judisk världskonspiration lever fortfarande kvar. 7. År 1986 mördades Olof Palme. 8. Två flygplan flög in i World Trade Center. Adjektiv Adjektiv är ord som beskriver människor, djur och saker, till exempel ”liten”, ”glad” och ”lång”.
    [Show full text]
  • INTERVENTION of STATE SOVEREIGNTY THROUGH RELEASING STATE SECRECY by WIKILEAKS Engla Puspita Haria, S.H.,M.H
    INTERVENTION OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY THROUGH RELEASING STATE SECRECY BY WIKILEAKS Engla Puspita Haria, S.H.,M.H. ABSTRACT The increasing number of disclosure of state secrecy in this age create by Wikileaks make the impact for state sovereignty such as stability of state, disturb the relationship between the state, dysfunction of government and political and economic instance. This number happened because of some factors:1) insufficiency of sophisticated technological support provided by related state, advancement and introducing new technology, collision between staff members. corruptions, and international criminal syndicated:2)the inconstancy law regulated the criminal act about secrecy state;3)technological advances while the human resources that are not reliable. But in other hand, people have right to know and it remarkable in Declaration of Human Right article 19 But there is no regulation at national and international level for Wikileaks. In this research, the study will investigate two problems: 1) what the impact for state sovereignty because of disclosure state secrecy; and 2) what is the legal action to protect state secrecy and study will find the problem of this research and create some offered solution and use the ultimate value in of all part the research with use the existence of legal theory, legal practice, norm or regulations, legal fact and indicated the conflict either. So this research will use normative type of research. In fact, in this research, study has analyze the case of Wikileaks and found that wikileaks already disclosure the data that very important for state sovereignty. Most of their documents are from the people who steal from diplomatic cable of state.
    [Show full text]