The basic question is not whether we think Julian Assange is a terrorist or a hero. The basic question certainly is not whether we think exposing the chatter of the diplomatic corps helps or hinders their efforts, and whether this is a good or bad thing. To continue to focus on these questions is to miss the forest for the texture of the bark on a single elm. If we take the inevitability of future large leaks for granted, then I think the debate must eventually centre on the things that will determine the supply of leakers and leaks. Some of us wish to encourage in individuals the sense of justice which would embolden them to challenge the institutions that control our fate by bringing their secrets to light. Some of us wish to encourage in individuals ever greater fealty and submission to corporations and the state in order to protect the privileges and prerogatives of the powerful, lest their erosion threaten what David Brooks calls “the fragile community”—our current, comfortable dispensation.
It’s absolutely true that Assange isn’t one of a kind, and that posting secret documents online for the world to see is now something that anyone could do. True.
But that doesn’t mean Assange isn’t of any interest, or that we should meekly accept what he’s doing. Assange isn’t bringing crimes, or blatantly wrong, activities to light—he’s using stolen documents as a weapon to try to weaken the U.S. government, among others.
That’s something we should be discussing. If he was merely serving as a platform for whistleblowers, we wouldn’t need to focus on him as much. He is using the web’s ability to widely distribute media as a means of warfare.
Sure, someone else could step in and do the same thing, but it’s perfectly valid to discuss whether it is justified, how we can prevent it, and to what extent it should be illegal. This is something that is altogether new in world history, and we would be doing ourselves all a disservice to accept it as a reality of modern society.