Free Speech has a number!! 88.80.13.160

‎"We should always look at censorship as an economic signal that reveals the potential power of speech in that jurisdiction." - Julian Assange

PRETTY much the most exciting thing happening in the world right now, is the fallout from the release of more than 250,000 US diplomatic cables. The founder of the website that released them is on the run, and the debate rages as to whether or not Wikileaks should be allowed to continue in it's mission.

With the main wikileaks website having been shut down, the IP address, 88.80.13.160,  is now being publicised as the best way of accessing the leaked material. Indeed it has now become the 'number of free speech'.

If you are struggling to be sure of your own opinions on the dangerous whistle-blowing phenomenon, you're not the only one. Most of the world is currently wrestling with exactly the same question - a moral question in fact, as all the best ones tend to be;
    If you have access to documents which expose political or corporate wrong-doing, should you publish them, even if doing so puts national security and international diplomatic relations at risk?

On Friday, The Guardian secured an online chat with Julian Assange, founder of the controversial Wikileaks website. As web-chats go, this one was particularly enlightening, and the variety of questions fielded to him were suitably chosen.

I had begun to lose faith in such methods of interaction after participating in the BBCs recent online 'chat' with Ai Wei Wei, in which the moderator embarassed those of us taking part by actually submitting the question "what is your favourite Dim Sum" to the famous Chinese artist and dissident - as if that was somehow relevant to the discussion on human rights which was taking place.

Thankfully Assange was not insulted in such a way, and the replies he gave left us in no doubt as to his reasons for maintaining the terrifying website which gives governments nightmares. Unfortunately, with this particular debate, merely understanding both sides of the arguement offers no help when it comes to placing yourself on either side of the divide.

Few can doubt the necessity for greater accountability, especially amongst governments - elected bodies - which massacre thousands in our names.

If you watch the 'Collateral Murder' video, filmed from an Apache helicopter gun-sight, released by Wikileaks and showing the unprovoked slaying of a number of Iraqis along with a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers, it is very hard not to be extremely thankful for the process which, through WL, brought such an injustice to the world's attention.

The video can be found here:



The 'Collateral Murder' leak - an example of why Wikileaks is important

http://www.collateralmurder.com/

For those who witness atrocities such as this to be able to safely 'leak' such footage to the world without fear for their own safety is a service that Assange provides and the importance of which cannot be over-stated.

The website was the recipient of the 2008 Economist Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression award and took home the 2009 Amnesty International human rights reporting award, and yet Assange is unlikely to be up for a nobel peace prize any time soon.

 Wikileaks has released more classified intelligence documents than the rest of the world press combined, which rather than making him a hero, has put Julian Assange right at the top of many countries most wanted lists.

His current lifestyle is reminiscent of a Hollywood spy film, with reports from those that have been in contact with him in recent days claiming that he is continually on the move, checking into hotels under false names and "changing mobile phones as other men change shirts."

Many claim that, through making sensitive information available, Wikileaks has placed the lives of many who rely on diplomatic security in danger, and that those who work for the mysterious website have blood on their hands. Indeed it is difficult to see how diplomacy itself can function as we know it when the threat of publication hangs over every cable, document and conversation.

Whilst the odd unpleasant remark about Berlusconi or Prince Andrew can be laughed off, it would be fair to say that making public information regarding the current situation in Korea is irresponsible and potentially catastrophic.

It is also worth noting that absolutely none of the ongoing 'cablegate' affair has been reported by media in China - a country which has suffered heavily from the hemorrhaging and whose silence on the matter can be seen only as an indication of their embarrassment.
The Communist-in-name-only superpower was exposed in cables detailing American fears of Chinese cyber-warfare, complaints from Britain, India and Japan of Beijing's aggressiveness and African anger at China's coercion in aid-for-resources deals. Though not at all unexpected there were also revelations that cyber attacks on Google, which led the internet giant to leave the Chinese mainland, actually originated from within the Chinese government's Politburo itself.

 One thought repeated throughout the internet at the moment is that the time and investment that governments are suddenly putting into censoring Wikileaks highlights a far more troubling point than the content of the documents themselves:  "All the censoring of WikiLeaks is more alarming than the actual content of the leaks. It only further justifies WL's actions," reads one widely distributed comment.

And if our governments are happy to lecture China, North Korea and Singapore on the wrongs of censorship, then how can we stand back and watch as Julian Assange is vilified for merely providing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth....?

Indeed, I think that the threat of being censored to such a degree by our own elected officials scares me more than the threat of sensitive documents being in the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

As Assange deftly moves to keep the documents online - even posting massive encrypted files titled 'insurance' on bittorrent sites - he writes during The Guardian's webchat that he sees the attempts to shut him down by the US as a good sign:

"The west has fiscalised its basic power relationships through a web of contracts, loans, shareholdings, bank holdings and so on. In such an environment it is easy for speech to be "free" because a change in politics will rarely lead to any change in these basic instruments. Western speech, as something that rarely has any effect on power, is, like badgers and birds, free.

"In states like China, there is pervasive censorship, because speech still has power and power is scared of it. We should always look at censorship as an economic signal that reveals the potential power of speech in that jurisdiction. The attacks against us by the US point to a great hope, speech powerful enough to break the fiscal blockade."



The most exciting modern debate in international security and censorship continues...

   



Are Wikileaks hands stained, or does Assange's mission highlight a
serious lack of transparency in governments around the world?