WE NEED TO BE PRECISE IN OUR LANGUAGE, USING OUR FREEDOM RESPONSIBLY
Because strictly speaking, the leaking of legally secreted information IS illegal; only once leaked it is no longer secret and therefore disseminating it at that point is not a crime.
The leakers act criminally when they perpetrate a leak; they are the the ones doing the leaking. But Wikileaks does not leak information. It records for the public record what's dripped out from the leaky faucet organizations of the elite. The leaker could as well disseminate the information via a newspaper or on facebook or anywhere else without criminal charges coming against the medium, for that is what social media platforms are - utilities of the public domain.
Why the state is able to go after Wikileaks under the law is by making the case Wikileaks aids and abets the leakers to get away with the crime. The issue (which, except in a state leaning towards tyranny, should be a non-issue) is the long-standing and formerly respected journalistic ethic of protecting the source's identity. That is what is under attack, and when that goes the only way the hold the powers that be accountable is satire and that will be possible so long as the powers that be deign to countenance it.
yea, not sure about social media being utilities in the public domain--if that was the state of reality, then twitter and facebook both wouldn't have delisted wikileaks' links during 2016 election.
Secrecy is not at all coherent with self determination. Blockchain and digitization may help expose the major myths that control this world.
I would like to agree with you but your language is imprecise ;)
what do you find to be imprecise? e