Do you agree that word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society?

[Lliam]

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know." - JFK

[Nomina]

No I don't agree. Every person has the right to secrecy. I'm immediately suspicious of anyone or anything that tells me I can't keep aspects of my life and actions and associations private. Fuck that shit.

[Lliam]

On that note, I agree 100%. Good point.

I think the president was addressing things like government secrecy, clandestine organizations, secret societies, and withholding facts from the public.

[Nomina]

Hmmm. Yes and no. I mean, what if I were part of those secret societies... wouldn't I and my brethren have the right to keep those private 😏

I'm kidding, I get the nuance.

But it gets tricky for me. If we're talking about transparency with government agencies, no problem. But what happens when it's secret societies/organizations/whatever, that aren't government agencies, that are private organizations but have some kind of impact or influence on the government. Don't they get rights to privacy? Or is it that because they could have some influence on a government, any rights to privacy is eliminated?

[Lliam]

I think it is the latter. Influence over government and control over public information.

[Nomina]

Well, that begs the question then: to what degree do people and organizations have a right to privacy (do organizations even have a right to privacy, by law?)?

And what constitutes influence? Because I can see the word "influence" being used to manipulate or force people into giving up their privacy or secrecy (if needed) because of some nebulous "influence" they have on the government.

[pers0n]

All I care about is the JFK all being part of the gay Masonic bloodlines, and there is a handful of people who worship JFK.

[Guy13]

No I do not find it repugnant. Everyone has right to their freedom to move freely and general privacy without invasion.

[es20490446e]

Secrecy is rarely desired, as this creates a problem: you have to blindly trust.

[Anonymous]

I’m curious. Do you think Kennedy would still have been assassinated had the Bay of Pigs invasion been successful?

[Lliam]

If. If. If. I don't know. But he was a threat to Israel, the CIA, the FBI (Hoover), the mob, and other forces for evil.

[exitseven]

JFK was a very wise man.