Exposing government corruption (and sketchiness) isn't really the best area to apply black-letter law though - it is usually going to be illegal; governments routinely try to stop people publishing embarrassing information.

If a whistleblower can't intend to get information of a government network, how are they meant to make an allegation with some substance behind it? Are they meant to have unsubstantiated word of mouth? We had that for years with ECHELON, the moderate middle just didn't take any of it seriously until the breaking-the-law levels of leaking happened (yes, the legal details are different with Snowden, but the strategy is very similar - leaker gets hit with incidental charges).

The argument here seems to be that while in theory whistleblowing would be OK; none of the ways to attempt a credible whistleblow in the real world are legal. There is a lot of disagreement in this article's comments about what the law says, so it isn't obvious how a whistleblower, who could be anyone here, is meant to follow the details of what they are and are not allowed to attempt.

Assange isn't even a US citizen, so he isn't expected to know US law. Functionally, all this rigmarole is to ensure that if the US government does something sketchy or even illegal then any foreigner who talks about it is legally subject to one of the US's famous black-bag-over-the-head abductions. The charges seem to be independent of what he leaked.

>Assange isn't even a US citizen, so he isn't expected to know US law.

Ignorance of the law is not a legal defense. Most Americans are not aware of the bulk of laws that apply to them.

Apparently there was a solid legal defense for the journalist murderers in the videos released by assange. They are not facing any kind of legal action.

What defense are you suggesting? I'm not defending the killing of those journalists and I agree that what Assange did is petty in comparison. But nobody looks good in this saga. There are no good guys and bad guys. Assange exposed instances of over-classification and the potential cover-up of war crimes by the United States but eventually became a propagandist for Russia and their war crimes in Syria. Assange shouldn't benefit because some of his actions were in line with a benevolent ideology. This shouldn't be seen as an ideological clash between proponents of free speech and war hawks because it's not that black and white.

Assange can't even get a hostile media to report what he said correctly. The idea that he is running a propaganda campaign is as fantastical as the idea that you are running your own personal propaganda campaign.

Assange cannot frame narratives, suppress journalism or push talking points through media outlets under his control. He didn't control anything except one twitter feed.

The only thing that people really pay attention to and the only reason he has a platform at all is because of what he leaks. Most people don't even have any idea what his opinions are - although the effect of the leaks is felt far and wide.

This absolutely SHOULD be seen as an ideological clash between proponents of journalism (it's not even about freedom of speech, it's about freedom of journalism) and war hawks. And taking the side of the journalist murderers? Not a good look.

It is that simple and you can tell it's that simple because Assange is getting prosecuted for exposing the murders and the murderers are going free and nobody even disputes (except in a very legalistic sense) that they were murderers.

The idea that he's a stooge for Russia? There's your propaganda - it's pretty much no different to the red scare of yesteryear.