Background:
You are Wilton Herbster, corporate chief of "The Herbster Dail y," an internationally acclaimed-newspaper, and have, discover in a rather repulsive yet attractive moment of fortune and misfortune, that fourteen governmental bureaucracies have allegedly conspired to convict, Sanjuanita Bidgood, a killer for whom they cannot legally find evidence for. However, they know (rightly) that Bidgood has committed the notoriously-known Haumarket Shootings back in 93', and they do not want her to escape on a technicality, as the witnesses are too afraid to confront Bidgood on the stand. So, they have planted evidence so to convict her guilty in a court of law.

Your decision:

You are the only person to discover this, and are contemplating whether or not to expose this governmental conspiracy on "The Herbster." While you do want to expose a framing, you do not want to let Bidgood go free, as she can potentially kill again. All the same, there has been a grave miscarriage of rights that threatens to hamper your future liberties. After all, wouldn't a dangerous precedent be set if government agencies are allowed to falsify evidence so to satisfy their conceptions of justice. Even so, a serial killer! Would you embrace the freedom of speech to tell the truth if it has such a grave consequence, or perhaps would the consequence be outweighed by an even-greater, lurking one? Consider your course of action, and your responsibility to not only a system of justice, but to the constituents that establish it.

Guys, try to answer that question; that is the topic for our pelicanjournal this week. By the way, tell me if you want to include your views in the pelicanjournal (opt-in scheme, not opt-out like facebook was)