WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has returned to Australia after 14 years. He has returned to his family. Assange’s release has relieved many, especially those who believe in freedom of speech and the press. However, his return has also raised many questions. Why did his long fight end only because of his family or the urge to protect himself? Assange and his supporters have never believed it was wrong to release the secret documents of a superpower, seeing it as an exercise of freedom of the press.

In 2024, Assange came to an understanding with the US court and arranged to free himself by accepting guilt. Many are still expected to ask questions about this.

However, one should also consider the other side of the story. Assange, an Australian citizen and computer scientist, has proven to be a unique individual from the beginning. Supporters view him as a champion of free speech and transparency, capable of confronting the powerful directly. Detractors see him as reckless enough to endanger the lives of others and national security.

As a result, it is difficult to determine the extent of Assange’s guilt and innocence. This involves legal, ethical and geopolitical considerations, so it cannot be simplified into a single word.

Julian Assange founded WikiLeaks in 2006 to bring suppressed information to the public so that people could know the truth. Most media worldwide reflect the government’s approved narrative without questioning it. Those in power demand unquestioning loyalty, but there are always people who think differently.

Assange is one of those people. His "crime" is revealing the state's lies and exposing the truth.
Julian Assange was accused of leaking state secrets and refusing to disclose the document provider’s name. But this is the introductory journalism lesson. It is the responsibility of the media to reveal what the powerful state/government/institution/individual wants to hide. Assange is just doing that.

No one can blame him for having stolen information. Two Washington Post journalists did the same task in the 1970s, still known as the Watergate scandal. The Pentagon Papers were leaked by the New York Times. But no one made them stand in the dock.

Why can't the self-proclaimed defenders of freedom of speech accept what Assange did by releasing classified or undisclosed documents on his website? The documents included logs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, information about the use of detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison, and cables sent from various American embassies.

He obtained this information from a young American soldier named Bradley Manning, who later changed her name to Chelsea Manning. If Manning hadn't acknowledged the help, no one would have easily known about it.

In 2010, after WikiLeaks leaked US secret documents, major media outlets united to publish the documents. The Guardian in Britain, Le Monde in France, El País in Spain, Der Spiegel in Germany, and The New York Times in America were part of this effort.

They edited and published WikiLeaks information. However, whenever Assange realised something was being covered up, he released all the related documents on his site. Even when the United States filed a complaint against Assange or Chelsea Manning on the same charge, not a single word was used about these major media houses. As a result, there was, and still is, a serious question about who is exempt from freedom of the press or speech. By applying different standards to different groups, America has cast doubt on its principles.

Let's review the events of the past 14 years regarding Assange. In 2010, he was initially arrested in the UK. Although he was not detained for any specific crime, Swedish authorities issued arrest warrants for Assange on charges of sexual misconduct with two women. Assange refuted the accusations and alleged that they were politically motivated. He sought asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden. The legal proceedings continued in this regard. Eventually in 2012, Ecuador granted him asylum in their embassy, where he stayed for six years.

During this time, journalist Glenn Greenwald visited Assange’s residence and noted that Assange’s body had not been exposed to sunlight for six years due to the constant presence of British police surrounding the two rooms he occupied. In 2019, Ecuador succumbed to pressure from the Trump administration and expelled Assange.

British police arrested the WikiLeaks founder and sent him to Belmarsh Prison, which has been compared to Guantanamo Bay. It is essential to understand the severity of Assange’s situation. During his five years in prison, he spent most of his time in solitary confinement. On top of this, the looming threat of extradition to America, where he could face life imprisonment or even death, added immense pressure. It is challenging for a man whose guilt is disputed to endure this level of pressure for so long.

Assange is fortunate not to be a citizen of a third-world country. Because of this, he could return to Australia by pleading guilty in a US court. People from diverse backgrounds worldwide have supported Assange for the past 14 years. However, the Australian government was able to exert pressure on the United States and the United Kingdom to release him through a compromise influenced by public opinion in the country. It is hard to say whether any other country could have achieved this.

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are prime examples of the unrestricted flow of people’s ideas and information in the free world of the Internet. Throughout human history, Julian Assange has been viewed from multiple perspectives. His legacy will encompass strength juxtaposed with deceit, immorality alongside morality, and the coexistence of law and lawlessness. Regardless, individuals like Assange have emerged and will continue to do so. Their courageous stance against powerful forces should be recognised rather than condemned. Future generations will remember them.
_______________________________________
The writer is Executive Editor of Digital Media, Independent Television