Metropol

barcode wrote: have this stuff is utter pointless, I bet the royal family member is harry dressed up or Philip saying something stupid

I appears that it is Prince Andrew....

The newspaper also said the cables contained criticism of British military operations in Afghanistan and U.S. shock at what the newspaper called the "rude behavior" of royal family member Prince Andrew when abroad
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AR3FG20101128

Chie wrote:BBC News is reporting that the US government plans to add Wikileaks to its list of foreign terrorist organisations.

a typical response and predictable response. the US can't deal with it so they try to suppress it. the behaviour of the US has more in common with china and other rouge nations than perhaps they'd like to openly admit. i'm not sure the US will succeed in categorising wikileaks are a terrorist organisation, and even if they do, it's only a list. it doesn't make wikileaks a terrorist operation.

Chie wrote:Australia is handing out fines to websites that link to Wikileaks.

unenforceable. if the site is hosted outside the country they have zero chance of doing anything about it.

Wikileaks offer a valuable public service.

John Bolton's face was red on Sky News therefore it must be good

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/20 ... s-everydns

Final clinching proof that the first amendment means nothing these days.

Does all this Wikileaks stuff HELP or HINDER plans to censor the freedom of the internet? It's no secret there are those in power who want to limit the freedom of the people to exchange information through the internet. Does Wikileaks 'help' or 'hinder' these plans? All thoughts welcome.