One of the major international news stories at the moment is the ongoing prosecution of WikiLeaks' mastermind and founder, Julian Assange. There is a considerable amount of flak flying from both sides, with governments worldwide condemning the man, and a huge public following showing support.
What's interesting, is that in a lot of countries out for his blood, he may actually not have committed any crime.
The Australian Federal Police concluded an investigation into Assange's actions by advising the Government that there had been no breaches of Australian law. This of course comes after PM Julia Gillard's scathing comments about Assange, including an assertion that his actions were entirely illegal. This faux pas seems to have cost Labor a significant amount of public support - although that is neither here nor there in terms of the issue at hand. WikiLeaks has been publishing classified documents that it argues will allow the global public to better educate themselves in terms of government policy. The question that needs to be asked is whether the documents released are actually effective in doing this. In some cases, definitely, such as the proposed Australian web blacklist. However, Bill McGowan raises a very good point when he proposes that, "Naming names of diplomats who have issued candid assessments of sensitive foreign affairs and foreign leaders, under the expectation of confidentiality, will destroy or diminish the trust and credibility of our [United States] envoys, and work against candid communication and sound policymaking." McGowan goes on to suggest that continued releases of this nature by WikiLeaks would in fact produce less transparency - completely subverting its purpose.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for freedom of speech and national transparency in every country, and respect that WikiLeaks has published many important documents that have contributed to this. One just needs to think about whether the opposite has also been achieved in some cases.
