We Can Handle The Truth

Steven Spielberg’s Disclosure Day is, among other things, a story about the right to know (Spoiler Alert: I discuss some of the plot points of this film). As the film unfolds, we follow several characters who are on a mission to tell the planet about the existence of aliens, whose existence has been covered up by a company called Wardex.

The film portrays two main ideological fronts: “team disclosure” and “team cover up.” Team Disclosure is primarily composed of Daniel Kellner, Margaret Fairchild, and Hugo Wakefield, who are racing against an army of agents trying to thwart them, so that they can broadcast a trove of files that Kellner has stolen to the world. Team Cover Up is led by Noah Scanlon, the head of Wardex, and his employees, trying to stop the disclosure.

In the middle of these ideological fronts stands Kellner’s girlfriend, Jane Blakenship. When Kellner finally reveals to Blakenship what he is trying to do, she is horrified by the possibility that telling the world would be completely destabilizing. Her concern is similar to Scanlon’s concern, though we have some reason to think that Scanlon is also motivated by greed and power, whereas Blakenship’s motives are more selfless. Blakenship ultimately joins Team Disclosure.

Setting aside any misguided motives, the film poses an interesting and important question about epistemology and knowledge: What is the right to knowledge or information grounded in, in the first place? Is there some universal human right to know certain facts about the universe (such as whether or not there are aliens)? Does this human right to know about the universe take precedence over the risk that certain disclosures may have to the stability of society (and if so, when)? If someone has access to facts that fall within the sphere of things we all have a right to know and is in a position to disclose these facts, do they have an obligation to do so?

The right to knowledge is crucially connected to other important rights. If one is committed to a right to freedom of choice, thought, or the right to life, it is not difficult to understand why the right to knowledge becomes important. Consider, for instance, how free choice requires knowledge about the world. When I make a decision without knowledge, receiving additional knowledge may change the decision I make, and thus allow me to make a “freer” choice.

For instance, if I decide to go swimming in the lake, and then I learn that there has recently been a chemical spill in the lake, I will change my decision for the better. This example illustrates the positive impact that having information does for us in our decision making. I am surely more free when I have this information and my interest in protecting my life is much better preserved as well.

However, we should not assume that more information is always better when it comes to protecting our interests. For instance, imagine that someone is at the doctor’s office and needs to decide about a treatment. They learn that they have two options: either have surgery or take medication. Because they are not a medical expert, there is a limit to the amount of information they can comprehend. Every time a healthcare provider informs their patient of options, they need to decide how much detail to give. If they give too little information, they run the risk of violating the moral criteria required for informed consent. However, if they give too much information, they may inhibit the patient’s ability to make the best choice. Giving non-experts information at an expert level of granularity may simply be confusing. So, while the right to knowledge is important, it does not necessarily translate into a duty to share all information in all contexts.

In addition to the bundle of rights that a right to knowledge may be connected to, knowledge about the world is crucial for accountability. When it comes to the right to know, one of the more pressing epistemic arenas is anywhere that power relations exist, e.g., coercive governmental power or corporate power. When power asymmetries exist and one person or group can use their power to influence the lives of others, the right to knowledge serves as a way to protect those who are subjected to power. This is precisely what is at stake in Disclosure Day. Wardex’s suppression of the alien files is not merely a corporate secret, it is an exercise of power over an entire planet’s right to know about something that concerns them.

A significant number of modern political societies have recognized this very point and have enshrined the legal right to information in some form or another. In the United States, we have the Freedom of Information Act. In India, there is The Right to Information Act. In 2002, Mexico passed a particularly unique and groundbreaking version of the right to information; this law requires information to be shared when it concerns important human rights violations, even if sharing such information is a threat to national security. While many countries throughout the world recognize the right to information, none have a provision quite like this.

While having a legal recognition is important for securing a right to know, implementation of these laws is often subject to controversy. In the U.S., there has been a long and protracted debate about the Epstein Files and whether or not the U.S. government has fulfilled its obligation to release information in a sufficiently transparent way. Critics argue that the government’s redactions serve only to protect an economic elite class of serial abusers while at the same time causing further harm to the survivors of the horrible ordeal.

We can return again to the core question that Disclosure Day forces us to confront: to what extent does the public have a right to know facts, when sometimes those facts may lead to chaos? Was Kellner right? Should we learn the truth about aliens, even if the disclosure carries a great deal of risk? I believe the answer is yes, and I am on Team Disclosure for three reasons.

First, society is often in a state of chaos. I am not so naïve to think we will always survive the chaos, but I also do not see any reason to think that one piece of information will be the downfall of us all. One criticism I have of the film is the depiction of the disclosure itself, where the world grinds to a halt and watches in silence as the data trove is broadcasted. Humans are so accustomed to sensational news that I wonder if we wouldn’t treat this like every other piece of news; there will be debate, denial of its legitimacy, hot takes from YouTubers, advertising campaigns trying to figure out how to reach their new intergalactic audience, and the whole gamut of responses we see in everyday sensationalism.

Second, facts about our galactic neighbors strike me as information that really does concern everyone. There is a real distinction between private information and public information and while there is a fuzzy middle, it is hard to argue that knowledge of intelligent off-world life falls in that vague space. The question of intelligent life outside of earth relates to our deepest and oldest questions about the origins of our own existence and the nature of our being.

Third, knowledge of alien life is clearly political and has serious implications for how humanity governs itself. I am, in my heart, an optimist about what we might find out there. It is entirely possible that an intelligent species capable of crossing the cosmos has transcended the violent impulses that have plagued our own history, or may never have developed weapons at all. But the very fact that another life form has managed to reach us tells us something important: they possess technology that exceeds our own, and where technological superiority exists, the capacity for superior weaponry exists. We also know nothing of their politics, their history, or how they have handled conflict among themselves or with others.

Of course, these are not reasons for us to be hostile out of the gate, but they are reasons to take the question of first contact seriously and we will need to know: are they friend or foe? I know enough about human history to know how beings that believe they are superior treat those they perceive as inferior, and that pattern of behavior is not one we can assume is unique to us. Either way, the question of how to respond to these visitors surely concerns every person on this planet. I for one would not want to be left out of the decision-making procedure that my own government may make in response. To know what the government knows about non-human intelligent life seems crucial for any people that want to retain reasonable public influence over the powers that govern us.