sludj5

Many people have suggested that WikiLeaks was brazenly partisan in this election and colluded with Team Trump (and by extension, Russia). Just today a top Russian ally to Putin is quoted as saying Russia did not interfere in the election but "maybe helped a bit with WikiLeaks".¹

How much do you consider the impact of selective releasing, insinuation, the timing of releases and the intentions of your sources when preparing to release documents?

Would there ever come a point when these factors outweigh the benefit of informing the public or is informing the public inherently worthwhile regardless of the circumstances?

Many thanks.

^1. Note: the ally was speculating, not admitting - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/putin-applauds-trump-win-and-hails-new-era-of-positive-ties-with-us?CMP=share_btn_tw

Assange said in his statement on the election that:

The Democratic and Republican candidates have both expressed hostility towards whistleblowers. I spoke at the launch of the campaign for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, because her platform addresses the need to protect them

I suspect you'll get a similar reply.

What has the history of the opposition to porn been like and how has it changed over time? Now we have quite sophisticated arguments about how porn affects women's standing in society but presumably for a long time people must have opposed it for its shock factor?