Prev
Next

We’re killing the internet with our own triviality

Anthony Levin

by Anthony Levin

09 Dec 06:00am

Must Reads

Thomson didn’t answer the question everyone is asking - this is a caption

Thomson didn’t answer the question everyone is asking

296

Disco, the music that stubbornly refuses to die - this is a caption

Disco, the music that stubbornly refuses to die

36

Live blog: Craig Thomson’s statement to parliament - this is a caption

Live blog: Craig Thomson’s statement to parliament

179

Filed under: Asio, Information, Internet, Julian Assange, Politics, Security, Wikileaks

71 comments

Since its inception in the 1990s, governments have long since recognized the democratising functions of the web.

Living dangerously. Photo: Getty.

But control has always seemed impossible, even for a tool created by government.

Attempts to curtail online freedoms have come off looking like a girdle on a Leviathan.

With the arrest of Julian Assange, the politics of internet control has finally reached its zenith in the form of a double standard.

The saga also marks the fulfillment of John Naughton’s claim in The Observer in June this year that “the internet is the nearest thing to a perfect surveillance machine the world has ever seen…As a tool for a totalitarian government interested in the behaviour, social activities and thought-process of its subjects, the internet is just about perfect.”

It’s perfect, partly because of our own unconscious complicity with government. Australians could be forgiven for thinking that when it comes to misdemeanours exposed online, it takes fellatio with a dog to end one’s career.

Having post-match group sex doesn’t seem to be enough and may even get you a variety show on Channel 7.

But in truth, it takes far less: a broken prophylactic during consensual sex can attract international outrage, a warrant for arrest and threats of extradition.

The Assange saga is not just about an Australian internet maverick caught up in European politics. Attempts to shut down Wikileaks have ramifications all the way down the internet food chain.

When philanderer and Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, tried to pass legislation to control information posted by bloggers, requiring them to register with a legal authority, it was a warning to anyone who writes anything online, be it on Facebook or Wordpress.

Of course, Julian Assange is no blogger. He lives dangerously. He is, effectively, a dissidente maudit - an outsider and great provocateur of our democratic institutions.

His arrest reveals not only the damask-thin protections in which we unconsciously trust, but their ornamental importance when it comes to claims of national security.

As the figurehead of Wikileaks, Julian Assange is only marginally more of a threat to national security, than say, ex-Canberra Raiders centre, Joel Monaghan on a bender. (Matthew John’s comedy remains unclassified).

While critics try to unpack the political expediency of arresting a perceived transnational dissident on sex-related charges – a connection which needs no comment, for it borders on farcical - there is a deeper point to this gross morality play: the Internet, harbinger of human connectedness, is no longer the unassailable medium we thought it was.

No longer can we take for granted the borderless neutrality of the web to nurture free speech and access to information. No longer can one change service providers or host content in neutral countries to avoid the tentacles of the thought police in Washington or London.

Why would hosting content concern us? The domain of Wikileaks is, politically speaking, as far from our perfunctory internet usage as lunchtime footie is from the NRL, right?

Recall: under Howard eight years ago, sedition and ASIO laws in Australia meant you could be arrested for merely joking about terrorism in the pub or online – held under rolling warrants, without anyone knowing where you were.

It took considerable academic and, much later, mass outrage to counter the political momentum of post-911 thinking about security and every day life. Still this line of thinking dominates, but it takes on new forms and co-opts us in doing so.

What we thought was the last bastion of critical thinking in a democracy may be dead or dying. Scarily, the internet is being killed not by demagogues or Orwellian thought police but by our own trifling private lives.

It was the social speed of the email ‘forward’ that exposed Joel Monaghan. Our espial and confessional obsessions on social networks sew the seeds of our undoing. Cynical moral attacks on Julian Assange may be akin to distributing political condoms, but we’re the ones with our hands out.

The internet is not unassailable because ‘Big Brother is watching’. It’s unassailable because We are Big Brother. The next info-bite you freely reveal could be your last.

Most commented

349"Gifting", "journey" and other words we hate
296Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
24612 bigger issues than gay change and climate marriage
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
241They must pay for one's bitter disappointments
224The most laughable, err, spoof since Einfeld
224Punch on: Open thread 17/05/2012
215Punch on: Open thread 18/05/2012

71 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      05:06am | 09/12/10

      “Recall: under Howard eight years ago, sedition and ASIO laws in Australia meant you could be arrested for merely joking about terrorism in the pub or online – held under rolling warrants, without anyone knowing where you were.”

      Come, come, there’s no need to embellish your point with this kind of paranoid rubbish.

      (1) As far as I know, nobody has ever been arrested or charged under these supposedly draconian laws. Do you know better?

      (2) Howard has been gone for years now, and the laws are still in place. Why pick on Howard, and not the Labor Party who retain these laws - and want to impose an Internet filter as well?

      Your argument is not helped by petty political point scoring.

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      07:53am | 09/12/10

      No one knows.  It is an offence to report that the laws have been used.  Kafka, anyone?

    • michael j says:

      08:15am | 09/12/10

      kmow anything about what they call the BIKIE LAW these
      draconian laws are casuseing a bit of a problem
      but people don’t seem to relise they can be used against anyone,and there have been quite a few charged so far
      the high court chucked out an apeal by the sa gov

    • Bobster says:

      08:38am | 09/12/10

      Criticism of Howard does not a partisan argument make.

    • petty? says:

      09:31am | 09/12/10

      ‘this kind of paranoid rubbish’ is only so when it doesn’t involve you or yours. The moment it does .. all of a sudden these laws are seen for what they are; draconian.

    • Edward James says:

      11:43am | 09/12/10

      Political point scoring is not petty, we picked up the idea from watching our parliaments in action. When we write Howard or Rudd we are defining a time, and seeking to place blame. Our parliaments have two sides at some point in time they the parliaments may return to representing us all.That will happen when we reject lies and deceit from those whom we give our votes to in trust. A very small minority of our population incidentally. Freedom of expression is qualified and the truth is not always a complete defense against defamation. Every ad I publish attacking politicians and governments exposes me personally to a qualified legal response. But should I remain silent and watch my freedoms eroded? No way! Edward James

    • wreckage says:

      01:20pm | 09/12/10

      I personally think Howard was damned good at his job, but he did have a wide streak of authoritarian thinking and passed or instigated some quite anti-democratic laws and processes. Nowhere in the ball park of the Victorian ALP’s anti-blasphemy laws, but still bad.

    • acotrel says:

      02:19am | 10/12/10

      The arrest of Julian Assange will be a watershed!  Our basic freedoms are being threatened, and those of us interested in the truth will never forget his treatment by the powerful amongst us!

    • Against the Man says:

      06:07am | 09/12/10

      Wikileaks has destroyed Ruddy’s reputation beyond any hope of repair. Fading out of the political scene would be the dignified think to do.

      Reply

    • BobL says:

      07:56am | 09/12/10

      I disagree, we all knew he was a control freak, and at least he was offering an independent option and not blindly following US policy, as his predecessors and apparently his colleagues want us all to do

    • Out with the Ruddbot says:

      09:07am | 09/12/10

      Rudd needs to go, he is a foreign affairs embarrassment to our country. He shouldn’t blindly follow the US but attacking China? C’mon this is not what Australia is all about. Rudd doesn’t have any style or grace.

    • Old Clive says:

      06:29am | 09/12/10

      You are right, but there are somethings that must be controlled to enable society to function properly, National security is one of those functions and Governments must be zealous in that regard, that of course refers to our borders as well, our own personal security is another function and the police force should be zealous in their assignments there also, but alas it looks as if these disciplines are under attack in the name of freedom of the press or freedom of expression, the police are hounded if they try to stop a car thief who has violated some persons rights. It would appear that the only thing that is really guarded by the press here in Australia are the politicians personal lives and unfortunately they are flowing into our parliament in some areas. There can never be such a thing as freedom of expression in the media or society as it will lead to the disintegration of society. Just look at Insider trading laws and how they are policed.

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      07:55am | 09/12/10

      Your personal security is under more threat from the state than from any other entity.

    • Tombowler says:

      08:52am | 09/12/10

      Yes.. The state is always evil and out to get you.. Our governments are at worst inefficient and bungling with good intentions but an over eagerness to retain power and act politically….

    • The Badger says:

      09:28am | 09/12/10

      State governments aren’t always evil,
      but they lead the way in eroding Australians civil rights and certainly use the public purse to feather their own nests.

    • Duff says:

      09:58am | 09/12/10

      We are certainly very “zealous” about national security in Australia.  Has anyone noticed that we are now spending $20 billion per year on defence?  We rank 14th highest in the world in military expenditure.  Yet, we are 50th in the world by population.  How does that grab you, Old Clive?  Australia is now one of the big military spenders of the world and yet we seem to have no money for infrastructure etc. Seems to have slipped quietly under the radar.

    • Duke says:

      10:29am | 09/12/10

      @Duff. We rank about 14th highest in GDP, so it would be expected that our defence spending would be proportional—which it is. So what’s your point?

    • TChong says:

      10:34am | 09/12/10

      Duff, to me thats incredibly sad, but it is even sadder to see that us becoming a military superpower of our imagination , in order to be the whitehouses deputy, has bi-partisan ( excluding Greens) as well as media and popular support.
      Fear is always a good seller.

    • Steve says:

      11:13am | 09/12/10

      Australia is creating a more tech based defence force, this costs a lot of money. Ultimately this will put less lives at risk. If you had read any stories relating to equipment that defence personal use you would relise that a lot of our soldiers are buying there own equipment because the gear that is supplied to them is manufactured by the lowest bidder and is not neccesarily the best equipment for there needs

    • Duff says:

      11:16am | 09/12/10

      Duke - my point? That would be that we are spending a great deal of money on the military - 13th highest in the world in fact - and we are only home to about 0.36% of the world’s population (and we live in one of the safest areas of the world).  Sorry, but I thought we were in deficit?  That we were supposed to be cutting costs and that the NBN, at $40billion, was far too much money to be spending in the current economic climate?  Yet, it’s ok to be quietly spending half of that every year on ... what exactly?

    • Duke says:

      11:55am | 09/12/10

      @Duff. Has it ever occurred to you that the reason we live in one of the safest areas in the world is because we spend so much on defence?

      Defence is one of the most important investments any country can make. Without it, all the rest is pointless. If anything, we should be spending more, as we can’t always rely on the US for protection.

    • AdamC says:

      12:03pm | 09/12/10

      Duff, this ‘let’s cut defence’ line is immature and self-indulgent. We live in a re-arming world with defence expenditure rising from historic lows.

    • fish says:

      12:44pm | 09/12/10

      @Duff

      The reason we spend so much on the military is because we keep buying crap hardware that needs fixing all the time.  Submarine’s with screendoors anyone?

    • Markus says:

      03:05pm | 09/12/10

      Duff military expenditure is not measured relative to population, it is measured relative to GDP.
      As we are 13th in the world by GDP, being 14th in military expenditure is nothing really surprising.
      Australia’s average military expenditure is around 1.8% of GDP, which is well below the US, UK and France, on par with countries like Italy, and nominally higher than the extremely liberal nordic nations (Norway, Sweden Denmark all about 1.4%)

    • Rai says:

      03:16pm | 09/12/10

      Duff: the graph seems to back AdamC’s assertion.

      Doesn’t it make immediate sense that a nation the size of Australia (absolutely massive) with such a small population would have to spend a fortune to actually remain competitive? Western hegemony is a good thing anyway and I’m not willing to try the alternative so we can say we did the ‘right’ thing.

    • Duff says:

      04:33pm | 09/12/10

      Sorry, but why are GDP and Military expenditure necessarily related?  Defence costs go up because our economy is larger?  I would have thought the two would have no relationship but for the fact that more GDP means we have more money to blow.  But we don’t have money to blow as we are in a deficit and we can’t even afford to build roads and ports.  REMEMBER?

    • Rich says:

      06:11pm | 09/12/10

      Then perhaps we should look at the amount we spend on the dole (about half of the federal budget I believe) if you wish to build roads.

      Whats the point in roads if you aren’t even in control of your own country ?

      To think diplomacy will matter when 4.6 billion people above us want our resources is laughable.

    • Likes Joining Dots says:

      06:12pm | 09/12/10

      Duff, you seem focused on defence spending by population. Consider some other comparisons. Perhaps spending by land area would be worth looking at.

      We sit somewhere between the China and India in land area, so by your criteria of “like for like” our defence spending should obviously increase to match theirs.

      Brace yourself though, it’s going to hurt. A lot.

    • Dave Noble says:

      06:38am | 09/12/10

      It is simply because those in power, do not understand the internet and how it is integral to many peoples lives and businesses. They are products of a generation that doesn’t “get” technology - they like owners manuals and don’t seem computers as organic tools. When watching politicians talk about the internet and computers, it is clear they don;t actually understand half of what they are saying; they remind me of my father trying to figure out a VCR in the early 90s.

      Reply

    • Macca says:

      06:45am | 09/12/10

      “But in truth, it takes far less: a broken prophylactic during consensual sex can attract international outrage, a warrant for arrest and threats of extradition.”

      And we continue to marginilise sexual assault against women.

      Pretty weak article really

      Reply

    • TChong says:

      07:46am | 09/12/10

      Macca , who marginalises sexual assault. ?
      The claims being made are taken seriosly, hence the arrest, but arent you just a little curios about the chronology of theses alledged asaults ?
      Assault of any type is unacceptable, but that does not = every allegation as proven .

    • L. says:

      08:05am | 09/12/10

      “And we continue to marginilise sexual assault against women.”

      No, we are marginilising an alligation of sexual assult… The man has not even been charged let alone found guilty.

    • Duke says:

      08:23am | 09/12/10

      @Macca. Are you marginalising false accusations against men?

    • Huonian says:

      08:59am | 09/12/10

      Seems some people have already decided his guilt or innocence on the sexual assault claims.  And based on whether they support his Wikileaks activities or not.  Nothing to do with whether he actually sexually assaulted the two women or not. 

      As Christopher Hitchens has written elsewhere, many of the people who do great things are, at the personal level, dreadful people who treat their fellow human beings appallingly.  This whole thing isn’t about whether Assange is a good guy or not.  Even if one supports his Wikileaks activities, that’s no excuse for marginalising the claims made by the two women - claims about a serious crime.

    • Duke says:

      09:27am | 09/12/10

      I don’t see anyone marginalising the seriousness of the charges.

      Let’s look at the facts: Several months ago, when he was unknown, Assange had se3x with two women. Then he became famous and made a lot of powerful enemies. Suddenly, these women decided that they had been raped.

      If these charges turn out to be false, it is a very serious matter, and those responsible should be heavily punished.

    • Bobster says:

      01:03pm | 09/12/10

      What marginalises sexual assault is using it as a device to silence an outspoken critic of governments. Don’t know if the allegations are true or not, but the timeline certainly looks suss.

      These allegations have been around for months but it wasn’t until two days after the latest round of leaks began that Assange shot to the top of Interpol’s most wanted list.

      Whether justice is done or not in this case will end up being beside the point because, if he is found guilty, there will forever remain a massive cloud over the conviction.

      Very, very poorly handled by the authorities.

    • Richard says:

      04:35pm | 09/12/10

      The feminist left is in cahoots with the neo-con right. Julian Assange is a true freedom fighter from three laissez-faire centre, and thus poses a threat to both the authoritarian right and the totalitarian feminist left, that is why they seek to persecute him.

    • Ask a stupid question says:

      06:53pm | 09/12/10

      Hilarious, Richard. Eric will be thrilled to hear that.

    • jim morris says:

      06:50am | 09/12/10

      Julian Assange, a man in a sea of mice. Speak the truth and be fearless. Instead of frightening people into holding their tongues (fingertips) Mr Levin should be encouraging them to swamp the authorities with truths. That is the power of the internet.

      Reply

    • John GW says:

      07:01am | 09/12/10

      How true!  “It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.”  The internet enables more people to show their foollishness, including top government officials.  The hypocrisy of the uproar about Wikileaks (and mind you, I do not support the leaks) is that leaders of countries get away with worse crimes.  E.g., the Bush administration betraying one of their CIA operatives, Valerie Plame, and really endangering the lives of some of their information sources.  One petty official was indicted, but his sentence commuted by Bush, which is basically saying the US government can do what it likes.
      However, we still live in fairly democratic countries, with access to a real election box.  Spare a thought for those in totalitarian countries around the world, some of which are our friends and allies.

      Reply

    • Dennis Argall says:

      07:11am | 09/12/10

      Seems like the author, perhaps poetically, is describing the human brain.

      I lean to the view that evolution is inadvertent, that things move, like water downhill and wherever, not where masters plan but according to other principles.

      The human brain seems to me to be the product of an awkardly upright inadequately hirsute hominid on the African plain needing a cooling device on the top of her/his head. Hence the massive increase in the size of the frontal lobes. All the rest is history. Thus ditto the internet.

      Reply

    • Tom says:

      07:15am | 09/12/10

      A very deep thinking article. I am not sure the JA / Joel Monaghan danger comparison stands up? However, I would agree that the public stupidity factor is becoming easier to harness via the internet and that this is going to be a danger to all forms of decency in the future society as politicians and media force-feed us with with drivel.

      Reply

    • Donny says:

      07:38am | 09/12/10

      JA is leaking the truth and sometimes the truth hurts. The exposure of Rudd is interesting but what is more interesting is to see if Gillard will keep him on or relieve of his duties. Can she afford to screw him over again? Looks like our PM is controlled by Mr Rudd, the Greens and the Independents, she will do as they say. Wikileaks has indirectly shown as the character of our own PM and it isn’t impressive.

      Reply

    • Frederick says:

      08:01am | 09/12/10

      Levin’s article is thought provoking. I have been very opposed to censorship for many years - it is an ancient and evil control ploy used by governments and religions, or what passed for those institutions, when humans first gathered together for protection.

      But where Defence is concerned, I have always accepted that censorship may be necessary for the protection of all of us living within our ‘realm’ - ‘sovereignty’ - ‘country’. I admit to being a child during the war - Churchill’s words still live in my databanks and still make sense.

      Conroy’s ultimate objective with NBN will be government’s ability to impose censorship - ISP filtering - deep packet sniffing and the recording, for all time, everyone’s use of the internet.

      Not for our protection. Only for government’s protection and the suppression of any criticism of government.

      It is insufficient to dismiss Assange’s use of stolen material, as “well, we knew most of that stuff anyway”. He has deliberately published material which may endanger our country and our citizens.

      Levin’s article has not change my views

      Reply

    • Seriously though says:

      09:34am | 09/12/10

      Yes Frederick,
      ISP filtering is all about the suppression of any criticism of government.
      Do you see those black helicopters following after you as well?

      Perhaps you’ve been doing too much deep packet sniffing.

    • Likes Joining Dots says:

      06:30pm | 09/12/10

      A straightforward question for Mr Conroy.  If the internet filter was in place right now, would we be able to access Wikileaks?

    • Dr B S Goh says:

      08:02am | 09/12/10

      For general readers information the internet was conceived and a prototype was built at the RAND Corp based in Los Angeles in the late 1960s and early 1970s. RAND Corp is the think tank of the US Air Force. The main purpose of the internet was to be a distributed communication system which can survive a nuclear war.

      In the early days it was used by scientists and engineers and it was very cumbersome to login. With the development of the a user friendly system called the world wide web in the early 1990s it become a popular tool as it is now.

      It is interesting that it is shown to be a robust communication system by what is happening now.

      Reply

    • Unhappy says:

      08:38am | 09/12/10

      I don’t care if they release info on politicians. But releasing secret documents about military operations is wrong and will get people killed.

      Reply

    • mary wide bay says:

      09:38am | 09/12/10

      What is wrong is being lackadaisical about keeping top secret documents secure, have them available to over two million people, then blame the wrong person for releasing this info. Let’s point the finger in the right direction if we want to be pointing at all.

    • Rev says:

      03:54pm | 09/12/10

      @mary wide bay - say someone leaves a gun lying around.  Sure, they’re responsible for not securing it correctly.  But if I decide to pull the trigger, I’m also responsible for what happens next.

      I support Assange’s intent, but I think he should be more circumspect.  For example, release stuff like the Collateral Murder video, but perhaps not the locations of Taliban informants and the like. 

      The aim should be to inform the public of injustices, not simply take everything available and throw it all out into the open without a thought for the consequences.

    • Anne Ti says:

      10:14am | 09/12/10

      To think the internet was ever a ‘free’ place to be (with borderless neutrality)is relly naive. Someone owns the ‘net’ and it ain’t Joe Public. Nothing has changed in thousands of years. The technology might have been updated but the masses are still enslaved by thier own stupidity and greed.

      Reply

    • Jason says:

      03:50pm | 09/12/10

      What the? Nobody owns the net..many individuals and entities connect and FORM the internet.  In the early 90’s before this stupid web thing showed up, the internet was truly free (of the ignorant).  Now, it is still more free than society in general - imagine what would happen if you published these leaks in print?  Everything has changed, open your eyes!

    • Rose Russo (www.the-budding-rose.blogspot.com) says:

      10:26am | 09/12/10

      Having post-match group sex doesn’t seem to be enough and may even get you a variety show on Channel 7.

      Love this comment. What a backwards world we live in today…

      Reply

    • CIA are the worlds biggest criminals says:

      10:50am | 09/12/10

      As much as you all will paint me conspiracy theorist, this whole Wikileaks sounds like it has been planted from high places so governments can work towards having an “international internet law” that will halt free speech.

      All the leaks released are not that important really, but notice how far the Americans are jumping? It’s because that want this to cause mass hysteria, that way they can push thru new laws.
      Think I am wrong? Watch and see. I guarantee you that the US will have an Internet law in the senate within 3 months, and every western country will follow.

      Say good bye to “Free Speech via Internet

      Reply

    • TruthAtNoCost says:

      01:18pm | 09/12/10

      Spot on. The powers that be were biding their time, waiting for the right moment to have a ‘legitimate reason’ to bring in anti-free-speech internet laws, and it seems that this latest WikiLeaks dump is the moment they’ve been waiting for. Reminds me of Bush using 911 as a convenient excuse to invade Iraq.

    • marley says:

      03:00pm | 09/12/10

      Well, I’m not so sure.  Whether we like to admit it or not, the Americans have much stronger Freedom of Speech laws than just about any other country on earth, and their courts regularly uphold the right, so I’m not sure they’d be able to censor the internet even in the US, never mind the rest of the world.  It’s one thing to try to control the internet, it’s quite another to change the US Constitution, which is what they’d pretty much have to do.

      I reckon all the bluster right now is because they know they’ve screwed up big time in their handling and storage of sensitive information, and they have no idea how to deal with it.  And they definitely want to discourage any copycats until they do figure out what to do.

      But, as you say, we’ll see…

    • TruthAtNoCost says:

      06:19pm | 09/12/10

      True, what you say about the US Constitution, Marley. I’d say the politicians will pass the anti-free-speech Laws (unless their Constitution lawyers advise them that it’d be a waste of time), and then it’ll be up to the Courts to decide where it goes from there. The whole world will be watching that case. We in Australia have no such right to freedom of speech, unfortunately.

    • notSue says:

      10:53am | 09/12/10

      Fascinating article. This whole WikiLeaks saga is a watershed in cyberspace relations and perceptions will be changed in may areas when the dust finally settles, I agree.  I heard it comparedred to the Guttenberg Bible in it’s impact and ability to provoke social unrest. Information is power, and that’s what Assange is a diligent agent provacateur,as you put it, for.
      What he has manged to do is to undermine centuries of diplomatic protocol. Diplomacy has only been possible because diplomats have been able to keep secrets.No longer will that be the case if the US succeeds in censoring the net, in stark contrast oi it’s hectoring of counties like China on it’s restrictions to information.
      The charges are for Sweden to determine and Swedish law will decide how to handle it, however, it’s not an unrealistic suspicion that a very large rabbit has been pulled out of the hat to silence him..and believe me, I would never trivialise charges of sexual assault.
      One thing is for sure, the net will not be tha same, I agree. neither will diplomacy. Countries will be forced to adapt their methods..and may calm up VERY tightly toward the US now. We live in interesting times. I bet the Chinese are chuckling.

      Reply

    • notSue says:

      10:57am | 09/12/10

      forgive the zillions of typos..rushing!

      Reply

    • Clancy of Sydney says:

      12:27pm | 09/12/10

      It is scary that world governments can get this far to squash the wikileaks website! This is a wake up call that Total governmental dominion of the internet is only just around the corner.

      Reply

    • Sheedy's Left Foot says:

      01:09pm | 09/12/10

      Do people believe that charges without evidence will be used to silence Julian Assange? It is not an episode of the X-files folks and is frankly a bit embarrasing to think that British, Swedish and European justice is manipulated by the US and some marlboro smomking Mr X in Langley.

      In the media fed world we live in, how can we be so naive to think that Julian Assange will be silenced via a show trial with a predetermined outcome?

      Let justice take it course folks and remember we are not living in a giant web ot tangled mysteries where conspiracies lurk at every turn.

      Reply

    • Chucky says:

      03:28pm | 09/12/10

      Well of course it is not an episode of the X-Files - if the shadowy smoking man was running this show behind the scenes he would have known better than to risk turning one man’s obsession into a crusade…

    • Chase Stevens says:

      01:40pm | 09/12/10

      No I disagree, Wikileaks has been attacked forcefully and strongly, and yet it still exists bigger and stronger than before the attacks. It exists on over 500 different locations wordwide, if anything it has become more unassaliable. The internet is alive and kicking hard.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      03:05pm | 09/12/10

      Yes, the internet is alive and kicking hard.  I’m not so sure though, that privacy isn’t on its death bed.  If it’s this easy to access and circulate classified government documents, imagine how easy it would be to delve into bank accounts, medical records, tax files, and put them up for all to see as well….I just hope my bank has better security than the US government.

    • Trude says:

      04:42pm | 09/12/10

      There’s a solution which would stop governments from having to worry about sites like wikileaks. It’s pretty radical, but it’s less bothersome than setting people up for crimes in one country so you can extradite them to yours. And completely free…. Don’t do the sort of sneaky, under-handed things, that make people feel the need to expose you.

      Reply

    • Razor says:

      04:54pm | 09/12/10

      Assange hasn’t been arrested for anything to do with the wikileaks stuff.

      He has been arrested on a waarrant from Sweden relating to alledged criminal offences.

      He has been refused bail with one of the reasons being that there is no record with HM Customs of entering Britain, therefore he entered through an improper method, possibly on a fake passport adn there is therefore reasonable grounds that he has both the capacity and the intent to flea if he so desires.

      All this claptrap about his arrest showing how he is being persecuted in someway is utter blarney.

      Reply

    • Mahatma Cote says:

      06:59pm | 09/12/10

      Totes agree about Matty Johns.

      Reply

    • Ken Maynard says:

      07:20pm | 09/12/10

      Given the slanted nature of this article, ~courageous fight for freedom from despots & totalitarianism~ & the bizarre conspiracy theories put forward by so many comments, can anybody tell me WHAT HAS JULIAN ASSANGE EVER DONE FOR HUMANITY, other than be a star in his own fantasy.

      I regard Wikileaks as the biggest non issue so far this century

      Reply

    • plankybabe says:

      09:08am | 10/12/10

      Wikileaks is forcing change if nothing else!  It forces Governments and Corporations to either find new ways to hide their ‘secrets’ or to come clean and behave in a more upstanding way….very doubtful any will do the latter but
      at least this gets all of their attention… what will come out of it all… time will tell.

      Reply

    • scott the realist says:

      10:22am | 10/12/10

      The reason our internet speed is because most serves are in the U.S.A and they give us bugga all bandwidth to work with. America is the most direct Terrorist nation on earth, they arm, fund and place groups into power when it suits then strategically or politically or for oil interests, case in point, Noriega, the Osama family, Sadam Hussain, the Taliban were all funded and armed and trained by the U.S.A with no care for what happens to the people in those countries and the effect it has on destabilising a country, or the body count that comes with it to their own young soldiers or the local population faction they decide to back fr their own ends, now they want to control what information is available whilst crying out that other countries they are trying to destabilise or undermine are doing exactly the same thing they are now doing.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 22 May 12 11:25AM

Ever wondered which "baby" veg are little versions of the real thing and which are different plants? http://t.co/qVlD6pk8 via @drpiotrowski

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 22 May 12 11:23AM

Heard via @_Tors in the Punch office: "Baby corn, the veal of the vegetable world."

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 22 May 12 11:09AM

What the hell are baby vegetables anyway? via @slatehttp://t.co/ALUgTRsv

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 22 May 12 10:59AM

Federal government MP is going all kinds of crazy places to get Oz a UN Security Council seat. Next up: Gabon? http://t.co/i2mHmITH

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Deep down we’re all unionists, even the haters

by Ged Kearney

99

Deep down we’re all unionists, even the haters

Bill Kelty made a memorable speech last week. Addressing the ACTU Congress Dinner in Sydney, the legendary…

Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia…

by David Penberthy

114

Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia…

Speaking of yourself in the third person is usually a sign that you’re suffering from delusions…

South Australia. It’s the middle bottom bit.

by Tory Shepherd

98

South Australia. It’s the middle bottom bit.

If South Australia had just arrived in the world, red and wrinkled and mewling, what would we call it?…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

241 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed