2 responses to “Wikileaks and the Guardian”

1. 

   richard

   11/12/2010

   I don’t think there is a clear answer to that but one might take a guess. The Guardian might argue that what they are reporting is “honest comment” from a known source. Admittedly that is based on a recent Supreme Court judgment about defamation but the judges acnowledged a need for the law to evolve to meet modern media communications. National security arguments are a safer legal bet; ie interdict. That would open up a delicious can of worms for media types. The bully boy tactics of indiscriminate pressure being placed on commercial entities without a consistent
   legal approach suggests a reluctance by authorities to enter a Kafka-esque nightmare. Enter the tactics of personal discreditation. Mr Putin made some interesting observations today about current democracy and double standards.

   Reply
2. 

   Hermano David |Brother Dah•veed

   11/12/2010

   To me, the original sin is the collusion between WikiLeaks and the disgruntled US soldier stationed in Afghanistan. What periodicals around the globe are now doing is perusing the published documents and bringing to light their contents, something any one of us with the time could certainly now do for ourselves.

   The pressure by governments to make WikiLeaks exposition more difficult is the question of did these businesses, internet data farms, domain name venders and financial institutions, look the other way and allow violations to their own policies and standards in support of WikiLeaks, another form of collusion? Were these policies and standards to which other clients are stringently held?

   Reply