So, well...what is it?
Good? Bad? Virtuous? Damning? Heroic? Treasonous? Impeccable? Stupendous?
Sure, the Constitution allows free speech, and a free press, but what is too far, or too damaging?
WikiLeaks already blew up the political and public views on Afghanistan with the massive flood (forget leak) of war documents from 2004-2010.
After Julian Assange (mouthpiece) came under fire this week from everyone including Press Secratary Robert Gibbs, the Pentagon, and even Reporters without Borders, he had but few choice words to say:
"This organization will not be threatened by the Pentagon or any other group," he told reporters in Stockholm, saying that WikiLeaks"[will] proceed cautiously and safely with this material."
And as of now, WikiLeaks intends on going forward with publishing another 15,000 documents related to the War on Terror.
Not that Julian hasn't learned at least a small lesson.
He said WikiLeaks is currently doing a "line-by-line review" of the documents in question and "innocent parties who are under reasonable threat" will have their names removed from view for security.
However, the main security issue that seems to concern Julian is the involvement of the government with the press, and how that endangers America.
"The Pentagon...making threatening demands for censorship of a press organization is a cause for concern, not just for the press but for the Pentagon itself," Julian stated, and underlying his concern that the people condemning WikiLeaks instead "must protect what the United States' founders considered to be their central value, which is freedom of the press."
So, where does this stand in the eyes of the public?
And most importantly, what is the central issue in this conflict? Military security and safety, or freedom of the press?