My understanding is that publishing is technically illegal,
but there's a public interest defence. Note that it's a defence, not an exception, and the publisher would therefore have to be able to show such an interest. Maybe there's such a defence for some of the stuff WL publishes; but that alone won't justify their approach across the board.
Note, too, that my analaogy was to the moral claim, rather than the legal one.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Thu 16 Aug 2012, 11:20,
Reply)
Fair enough.
To clarify my position:
I'm ambivalent about WikiLeaks, insufficiently informed to pass judgement on them, and too apathetic to rectify that.
I think Assange is a tit, and I suspect his recent Sweden-dodging antics are a sign of either narcissism or paranoia; but I'm not going to say any more than "I suspect" on that, as I have no way of knowing for sure.
I don't care to defend WikiLeaks or Assange, really.
All I want to defend here is that diplomatic immunity is vastly more important than anyone involved in this pantomime of bullshit. The government should stay the fuck out of other countries' embassies, period.
As long as he stays on Ecuadorian turf, he's Ecuador's problem, not ours. If he leaves the building (or they kick him out), by all means, nick him then. If he does so in a diplomatic vehicle, follow it 'til he gets out (and then nick him) or it leaves the country (and then he's not our problem any more).
That's how embassies and asylum-seeking are meant to work.
(, Thu 16 Aug 2012, 11:44, Reply)