Well, we learnt that the U.S. thinks Silvio Berlusconi is an asinine clown, Prince Andrew is a boor, and Vladimir Putin is a macho mafiya boss.

Thanks, Wikileaks! We never would have guessed!

RPG- nice job at not answering my question:
It is actually a perfectly valid analogy- one can't exactly support democratic principles while bemoaning free information and press, let alone support these bodies being suppressed by governments- that is what fascism is- and the funny thing is, these aren't even leftist/neocon exaggerations, but quite accurate to definition.
As for who decides- well considering Wikileaks withholds leaks on these princples, they do (and yes, there are more people than JUST Assange). Innocent third parties? I already told you- government employees, undercover operatives, who are only doing their job need not their names published- the people orchestrating scandals, do.

Clown
Lets see, we also know (via Newspapers circulating these leaks):
1- Hilary Clinton has tried to steal personal data off UN members
2- A US helicopter has fired on Iraqi civilians
3- The Saudis are secretly lobbying for the US to attack Iran
4- Attempts to dump gitmo protesters on poor countries by bribing the leaders
5- Berlesconi may have secret relations with the Kremlin
6- Military strategists are forecasting a bleak view on our Afghanistan occupation prospects
7- The US would actually attempt to sabotage the EU's economy as mere punishment for not caving into trade deals
8- Israel is sabotaging the Palestinian economy to maintain it in a weak state.
9- Kevin Rudd took an anti-China stance becaus Hilary wanted him to.

And in response to the leaks
1- The US does not take kindly to people that uphold the first amendment
2- a good many elected representatives in both the US and Canada are bloodthirsty loonies who prefer convenient assassinations of the people in -1- than due process
3- Sweden is happy to impose a magical charge 'surprise sex' with contradictory evidence on only one person- conveniently the founder of this site.

Yes, trivial stuff for voters to think about next election.
If the 'opinions' were all you knew, try putting down the Celebrity-Gossip-Weekly and read the Herald more often- you might learn something.

hazza you need to park your ego aside occasionally, I choose to comment or express my opinion on articles or posts, I feel no obligation to "answer your questions" I do find it amusing that you are somewhat outraged when this happens ..does it happen a lot? Wonder why eh.

"It is actually a perfectly valid analogy", no it's not, because you want to cherry pick what constitutes free speech, and that's not possible.

it's not black and white is my point, and having some prima donna like Assange and his ilk decide what they will and will not publish smacks of political skullduggery .. why, they may only publish what they decide assists their world view, and we'd be none the wiser would we?

they may have all manner of embarrassing stuff, but choose only to hurt certain entities

how would you feel if you found out later that this wonderful democratic release of information was being carefully contrived to a political end .. wonderful? I'm sure

That's not democracy either is it?

Don't bother responding, there is no expectation on my part, it's rhetorical, as I treat most people's questions online anywhere. If you want to express an opinion on my post, fine .. happy to consider it.

"Don't bother to respond" to you RPG? certainly, as you would rather not have your inane points analyzed, or having to justify your silly remarks so anybody takes them seriously- and of course ,the fact that you avoided my question.

Either which way, it makes me laugh that some people here, (not mentioning any names, RPG and Clown), sincerely think Wikileaks is nothing but a cheeky socialist plot to pick on the USA- ignoring that the persons targeted are in fact the US Democrats, Australian Labor and UK Labor parties that the 'left' supported and the 'right' hated only a year ago! And of course ignoring also the leaks among dictators in the middle east- because that gets in the way of a good "wikileaks is an anarchist anti-USA conspiracy lol"! story!

Anyway, it's really quite a simple analogy RPG, I'm certain if you read slowly, and don't stumble too much on some complicated words you can understand it too!
That is, one of the vital parts of democracy is a free press and transparency into the conduct of an elected government to reduce secrecy (and scandals).
If this free press into what government is doing- especially misconduct and scandals- is censored, with the only reason being that the government doesn't WANT this information published, what else would you call it?

I know you will of course avoid answering because apparently "you have better things to do"- even though you keep coming back to make silly rants.

Carry on!

This is giving me a good laugh!

Jim, I think your implied basic premise is faulty - that the mainstream media publishers are more ethical than Wikileaks. I don't see much in the way of ethical constraint from the mainstream media. In fact, some use Wikileaks material with glee on the one hand while denigrating Assange and his organistaion on the other. The only constraint most mainstream media employ is to make sure very little that is outside the latest "who to hate" world view sees the light of day.

King Hazza,

'a good many elected representatives in both the US and Canada are bloodthirsty loonies who prefer convenient assassinations of the people [that uphold the first amendment] than due process'

Really? A good many, huh? Can you name them?

'Sweden is happy to impose a magical charge 'surprise sex' with contradictory evidence on only one person- conveniently the founder of this site.'

Again, really? You can of course, cite evidence to prove that *on-one* else in Sweden has *ever* been charged under the relevant law?

Or are you, like Julian Assange did on Larry King, dismissing rape as 'trivial'?