Ah the WikiLeaks saga. Just like Left vs Right politics, discussion about Julian Assange and WikiLeaks seems for the most part to produce polarised and sometimes hysterical outburst by parties with opposite agendas – but there are some home truths each side conveniently forgets.

Predictably, the freedom-of-speechers say that WikiLeaks is classic modern journalism, that Mr Assange is a modern day hero for truth and freedom, and that he should not be criticised but applauded for being the brave and confronting purveyor of truth and exposer of corruption, lies, deceit and other interesting stuff, because the people have a “right to know”.

What they don’t say is that he has actually not revealed any corruption, lies or deceit (at least, none that anyone didn’t already realistically expect – is it really a big shock to know that we spy on each other?), it is not at all clear what he has blown the whistle on, there is zero journalistic value in what he has produced (it is simply a sometimes-redacted dump of information handed to them), so far there has been nothing in what has been printed that anyone can really say they had a “right to know” (other than those who believe that nothing should ever be kept secret), and all he has really done, apart from get himself into trouble, is embarrass various politicians and others who thought they were having private conversations. Great work, Julian – how inspiring …

However, just as predictably, those he has managed to embarrass are hysterically making him out to be a criminal of the magnitude of Osama bin Laden, crying for him to be “taken out” (and we did appreciate one comment we read in a blog that perhaps Mr Assange should wish he is hunted down just like bin Laden, because if he is, he will be alive for a very long time), desperately trying to find laws he has broken which would give rise to some horrible criminal penalty, and stating with the utmost solemnity (and managing to keep a straight face) that WikiLeaks has threatened world peace by evilly publishing these otherwise top secret documents.

What they don’t say is that the political embarrassment is easily stitched up between counterparts by a quick phone call, that most, if not all, of the opinions expressed to be held about someone are opinions the “someone” would have to have been unrealistically naive not to already know were held about them, no-one has been hurt or damaged by what has been published, and that much of the material published was very old and/or inaccurate and/or just personal opinion and unofficial.

They also don’t explain why it is not Ok for WikiLeaks to receive stolen “secrets” and publish the readable ones, but at the same time it is Ok for them to steal information and undermine relationships and publish those things to a select few who might one day help them to hold that stolen information against those from whom they stole it. They also don’t explain why it is not Ok for WikiLeaks to publish it but it is Ok for other news publishers to do so – does it make it Ok just because it is third hand by that stage, or is it Ok because those news publishers will probably be around a lot longer than WikiLeaks and one day these enforcers might need favours from the press?

Of course, the conspiracy theorists are also out in force – didn’t you know that it is all actually a big ruse by the US government – they plotted the whole thing – just to gauge how the world would react …

Oh the dilemma! Oh the scandal! Oh the … the … (* yawn *)

We have the luxury of not having to form a view on these things – the reality is that Julian Assange has probably broken the law in a few countries by publishing some of these things, and might be civilly liable for a few things too – which makes him at worst a slightly careless attention seeker, but not a criminal mastermind (or for that matter, any sort of mastermind – sorry, couldn’t help ourselves).

But if we must express an opinion — there are some things better kept secret in the interests of keeping the peace – not as in avoiding war – but as in maintaining harmonious relationships with overseas counterparts you don’t really trust and who don’t really trust you, and for that reason, Mr Assange would ideally have not published some of the things he published, but Mr Assange is hardly qualified to make those political or strategic decisions and shouldn’t really be hung out to dry simply because he spilled the beans on some embarrassing stuff the US with all of its might and wisdom lacked the capability to prevent a low-ranking disgruntled ex-employee from stealing and leaking to the nearest attention seeking troublemaker.

Freedom of speech? Speaking out is not always free …

Re-published from http://www.legalit.com.au/content/index.php?id=128