I think that Wikileaks isn't an organisation which goal is freedom of speech, but more searching for the freedom of information. And although on the surface that sounds like a nice goal, in reality it isn't.
- there is information which can be spread freely to the public because there is no negative impact (for instance for human or global safety)
- there is information which shouldn't be spread to the public because it can only do harm, and
- there is information which should be spread to the public because governments or other organisations are trying to cover their bad behaviour.
A good example of the 3rd one is the 'shopper kill accident in Irak', which was shown to the public rightfully.
A good example of the second is for instance when you think that your boss is a dick, and you tell it to your colleague, then you wouldn't like him to tell your boss how you think of him.
But wikileaks doesn't seem to make a difference between types of information, and that is totally wrong. They just publish information because they have it and because they can. So, although they could do a lot of good, at the moment it seems that they are more after feeding their need for sensation and causing governments to argue with each other.
Of course this is no surprise knowing that Assange was/is just an 'ordinary' activist and computer hacker.
And I feel that disturbing sites like Mastercard is only an act from 'hooligans', not people who really believe in Assange. Just like football hooligans, they don't 'believe' in their football club, they just want to fight. Or gangas on a beach party, they don't come to party, they just want to make a mess of it.
Why should power need to flow back to the people. The people have already the power, at least in democratic countries. We elect the ones who are 'in charge'. If they do wrong, we are to blame and next time we should vote different.
