Category Archives: WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks – Intrebari despre Twitter si cenzurarea WikiLeaks?

Intr-un articol intitulat Still More Questions About Why Wikileaks Hasn’t Trended On Twitter apar o serie de grafice ce par sa contrazica declaratia oficiala a Twitter (official statement) legat de cenzurarea WikiLeaks pe Twitter.

Simplist si foarte pe scurt, oficialii Twitter spun ca nu cenzureaza nimic ( desi au tot  sers conturi ale Anonymous din nou) dar graficele arata altceva. Mai devreme fusese pe CNN parca (?? – am uitat) o discutie cu rep Twitter si discutau despre eliminerea conturilor WikiLeaks pe acelasi motiv ca si ceilalti care au executat ordinele guv SUA.

Au incept si suspendarile de conturi ale celor care fac re-tweet pe stirile legate de WikiLeaks, asa ca, daca raspanditi informatii despre WikiLeaks s-ar putea sa va treziti cu contul suspendat. Asa ca, ori abandonati lupta, ori va organizati. :)

Primul articole despre cenzura de pe Twitter este „Twitter is censoring the discussion of #Wikileaks”

Al doilea este How Twitter Kept Wikileaks From Trending, And Why


It’s safe to say, I think, that Twitter didn’t want Wikileaks to trend. There are many different sensible ways to approach the construction of a trending topics algorithm, and the vast majority of them would have pushed “Wikileaks” to the top of the charts. That didn’t happen, and it didn’t happen on purpose.

But I don’t think, at the end of the day, that it’s all that likely that Wikileaks was targeted specifically. I think it’s just more likely that Twitter isn’t interested in having any topic like Wikileaks — an ongoing discussion of a major social or political issue, going through peaks and lulls and times of broader and narrower resonance — make the list.[..]


Informatia este antidotul pentru frica: WikiLeaks, Legea si Tu

Information is the Antidote to Fear: Wikileaks, the Law, and You

Legal Analysis by Kevin Bankston

When it comes to Wikileaks, there’s a lot of fear out there on the Internet right now.

Between the federal criminal investigation into Wikileaks, Senator Joe Lieberman’s calls for companies to stop providing support for Wikileaks and his suggestion that the New York Times itself should be criminally investigated, Senator Dianne Feinstein’s recent Wall Street Journal op-ed calling for prosecution of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, and even the suggestion by some that he should be assassinated, a lot of people are scared and confused.

Will I break the law if I host or mirror the US diplomatic cables that have been published by Wikileaks? If I view or download them? If I write a news story based on them? These are just a few of the questions we’ve been getting here at EFF, particularly in light of many US companies’apparent fear to do any business with Wikileaks (with a few notable exceptions).

We unfortunately don’t have the capacity to offer individualized legal advice to everyone who contacts us. What we can do, however, is talk about EFF’s own policy position: we agree with other legal commentators who have warned that a prosecution of Assange, much less of other readers or publishers of the cables, would face serious First Amendment hurdles ([1], [2]) and would be „extremely dangerous” to free speech rights. Along with our friends at the ACLU, „We’re deeply skeptical that prosecuting WikiLeaks would be constitutional, or a good idea.”

Even better than commentary, we can also provide legal information on this complicated issue, and today we have for you some high quality legal information from an expert and objective source: Congress’ own research service, CRS. The job of this non-partisan legal office is to provide objective, balanced memos to Congress on important legal issues, free from the often hysteric hyperbole of other government officials. And thanks to Secrecy News, we have a copy ofCRS’ latest memo on the Wikileaks controversy, a report entitled „Criminal Prohibitions on the Publication of Classified Defense Information” and dated this Monday, December 6.

Like this blog post itself, the CRS memo isn’t legal advice. But it is a comprehensive discussion of the laws under which the Wikileaks publishers — or anyone else who obtains or publishes the documents, be it you or the New York Times — might be prosecuted and the First Amendment problems that such a prosecution would likely raise. Notably, the fine lawyers at CRS recognize a simple fact that statements from Attorney General Eric Holder, the Senators, the State Department and others have glossed over: a prosecution against someone who isn’t subject to the secrecy obligations of a federal employee or contractor, based only on that person’s publication of classified information that was received innocently, would be absolutely unprecedented and would likely pose serious First Amendment problems. As the summary page of the 21-page memo succinctly states,

This report identifies some criminal statutes that may apply [to dissemination of classified documents], but notes that these have been used almost exclusively to prosecute individuals with access to classified information (and a corresponding obligation to protect it) who make it available to foreign agents, or to foreign agents who obtain classified information unlawfully while present in the United States. Leaks of classified information to the press have only rarely been punished as crimes, and we are aware of no case in which a publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it. There may be First Amendment implications that would make such a prosecution difficult, not to mention political ramifications based on concerns about government censorship.

The report proceeds to discuss the Espionage Act of 1917 and a number of other potentially applicable statutes, followed by an extended discussion (at pp. 14-20) of how the Supreme Court’s First Amendment decisions — and in particular the Pentagon Papers case — could complicate such a prosecution. For anyone interested in or concerned about the legality of publishing the Wikileaks documents and the legal and political challenges to a successful prosecution, this CRS memo is an absolute must-read.

Hopefully, this information will help counter much of the fear that our government’s so-called „war” against Wikileaks has generated. Meanwhile, we will continue our effort to oppose online censorship and provide additional news and commentary on the ongoing WikiLeaks saga, which is shaping up to be the first great free speech battle of the 21st century. We hope you’ll join us in the fight.

Related Issues: Free Speech

Related Cases: Bank Julius Baer & Co v. Wikileaks


WikiLeaks – mirror pe .ro

Update: adrese de mirror –  http://wikileaks.20.rowikileaks.greva.rohttp://wikileaks.panthera.ro

BRAVO! Toata stima! Vorba presedintelui Braziliei (traducerea Paulo Coelho): „Instead of blaming who leaked, blame those who wrote (the cables)”  – „In loc sa dati vina pe cei ce au facut cunoscute [informatiile], mai bine ati da vina pe cei ce le-au scris”

Sursa cu textul ref : PR Wave

Astăzi, 08.12.2010, ROHOST a lansat primul mirror românesc al site-ului, ce poate fi accesat la adresa

După ce guvernele s-au coalizat împotriva şi a fondatorului său, Julian Assange, accesul la site-ul a fost restricţionat. Iritaţi de acest demers, militanţi pentru dreptul la liberă exprimare şi membri celebrului site de informaţii au creat mirror-uri (copii ale site-ului accesibile la diferite adrese) pentru a continua să-şi facă vocea auzită.[..]

UPDATE: In lista mai apare si dar nu functioneaza, au renuntat sau s-a intamplat ceva.

Amazon – GREATA!

Au dat afara WikiLeaks pen’ ca faceau nu’sh ce chestii ilegale, nu?

Nici o problema, pe Amazon poti sa cumperi documentele WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks documents expose US foreign policy conspiracies. All cables with tags from 1- 5000 [Kindle Edition]

Heinz Duthel (Author)

Digital List Price: £7.37 What’s this? 
Kindle Price: £7.37 includes VAT* & free wireless delivery via Amazon Whispernet
* Unlike print books, digital books are subject to VAT.

FABRICA DE ARIPI: WikiLeaks – Scrisoare de la Anonymous

Pentru ca nu a mers cu prostirea multimii atat de bine cum s-au asteptat ( adica au existat mult mai multi oameni care au pus sub semnul intrebarii toata deghizarea cenzurarii WikiLeaks – de la povestea lui Assange la presiunile exercitate de guvernul americamn asupra Amazaon, PayPal, Visa, Mastercard etc -) si informatiile despre ceea ce  este real au inceput sa circule cu mare viteza pe internet, ei bine, s-a schimbat strategia de comunicare.

1. pe 7 dec apare pe un articol in care atacul asupra WikiLeaks este asumat de un personaj numit „The Jester”. Ok. Totul este „zugravit” ca fiind un razboi intre doua grupe de hackeri, iar idea strecurata este ca WikiLeaks ar trebui privita ca o organizatie terorista si lumea este prinsa intre razboiul hackerilor, adica „aia” de care se tem oamenii obisnuiti ca raman fara bani pe card, care nu respecta regulile guvernelor etc etc. Evident, este o construtcie de argumente pe care sa poti pune linistit eticheta „internetul trebuie cenzurat/ restrictionat”.

„The Jester” are un blog pornit, dupa cum am vazut, pe 26 iunie 2010. Subiectul urmarit este legat de urmarirea juhadului de pe internet. Probabil ca absolut intamplator :), pe 30 iunie 2010 The Jester este intervievat de un reporter de la Die Welt ( o publicatie infiintata in 1946 de armata britanica pentru propaganda aliatilor). Interviul este pueril si transparent rau de tot (asta este opinia mea personala si atat). Il gasiti aici. Daca ar fi sa incerc sa mi-l imaginez pe acest The Jester ajung rapid la imaginea unui pusti in corp de adult, cu o disonanta cognitiva de parca s-ar fi uitat la RTV si A3. Asa cum priveste povestea care ni se serveste cu terorismul si alte alea, cateva evenimente din istoria tarii noastre probabil ca sunt perfect normale pentru el iar romanii care au luptat pentru libertate au fost teroristi :)) Ganditi-va un pic: au venit turcii peste noi pentru ca asa le dadea lor bine la strategie si interesul lor spunea ca Tarile Romane tre’ sa fie controlate ca puterea otomana sa fie mai marefata de X tara/ imperiu. Nu a contat vointa poporului, interesele poporului roman. Asa ca si-au vazut de ocuparea lor. Cam asa si cum interesele guvernantilor SUA si a celor ce castiga din urma razboiului, pentru ca unii castiga extrem de mult. Interesele populatiei americane nu conteaza si NU SUNT servite de razboaiele pe care le declanseaza SUA; cea mai buna dovada este situatia americanului de rand, economia americana asa cum este ea acum.

2. pe 8 dec apare un articol ce ii acuza pe Anonymous de o agenda ascunsa, legandu-i de traznaia numita „razboiul asupra Craciunului” . Cam lipsiti de imaginatie, dar asta este tot ce au avut :)

Si continua sa apara articolele care incearca sa expuna totul ca fiind un razboi intre unii care actioneaza ca teroristii  (cei ce sustin libertatea accesului la informatie, libertatea presei, libertatea de exprimare, deci sunt periculosi si lumea trebuie sa se fereasca de ei si sa-i haituiasca ) si cei are „apara” SUA si valorile sale si pentru care cotropirea unei natiuni, dezmembrarea ei, omorarea de civili, exploatarea resurselor acelor tari in detrimentul populatiei native, castigarea unor sume enorme de bani de catre cei care vand arme si de-o parte si de alta, secretizarea si actiunile de incalcare a acordurilor internationale, manipularea membrilor unor organizatii internationale si a guvernelor, cenzura si opresiunile in numele intereselor lor (de casta) reprezinta normalitatea. Hmmm….. cand s-a deformat atat de tare normalitatea??

Anonymus au raspuns cu o scrisoare deschisa in care declara intentiile si motivatiile lor. Ramane de vazut daca oamenii vor pica in capcana intinsa de departamentul de psyops american si-si redefinesc nomalitatea dupa cum da bine intereselor americane si fricii semanate in fiecare secunda. Ar fi de-a dreptul extraordinar daca din atata frica semanata non-stop, oamenii s-ar trezi dintr-o data imuni si si-ar redefini normalitatea :) apoi ar actiona pentru a-si readuce guvernele, parlamentele, tarile inapoi in normalitatea pe care si-o doresc. Chiar se poate si nu-i atat de greu si nici nu se face cu razbel :) ci cu actiune, inteligenta, coerenta in comunitati si „unire-n ganduri si-n simtiri”. Chiar se poate face  si bine si repede.

Pe masura ce-mi permite timpul, voi reveni asupra textului scrisorii si o sa traduc in romana.

SURSA:  Anonops History

A Letter from Anonymous – O scrisoare de la Anonymous

Mesajul Nostru, Intentiile si Potentialele Tinte
Cei care neagă libertatea altora nu o merită pe-a lor”
– Abraham Lincoln
„Cel ce sacrifica libertatea pentru siguranta nu le merita pe niciuna”
– Benjamin Franklin
Salut Lume.
Noi suntem Anonymus.
Ceea ce stiti sau nu stiti despre noi nu este relevant.
Am decis sa va scriem voua, mass mediei si tuturor cetatenilor lumii libere pentru a va informa referitor la mesajul, intentiile noastre, potentialele tinte si despre pasnica noastra campanie pentru libertate.
„True, This! —
Beneath the rule of men entirely great,
The pen is mightier than the sword. Behold
The arch-enchanters wand! — itself a nothing! —
But taking sorcery from the master-hand
To paralyse the Cæsars, and to strike
The loud earth breathless! — Take away the sword —
States can be saved without it!”
– The Cardinal
Richelieu; Or the Conspiracy by: Edward Bulwer-Lytton
Mesajul este simplu: Libertatea de exprimare.
Anonymous promoveaza pasnic Libertatea de Expresie, oriunde si in orice forma. Libertatea de exprimare pentru: Internet, jurnalism si jurnalisti si cetatenii lumii in totalitatea lor.
In ciuda a ceea ce ganditi sau aveti de spus [despre noi], Anonymous promoveaza [Libertatea de exprimare] pentru voi.
Ultimele stiri despre campania noastra au fost, in cel mai bun caz, prost informate. Anonymous nu inseamna tot timpul acelasi grup de oameni.
Despre Constitutia Statelor Unite se spune ca este un document viu pentru ca poate fi modificata, amendata, schimbata conform vointei poporului si astfel incat sa corespunda necesitatilor poporului.
. In that same vein, Anonymous is a living idea. Anonymous is an idea that can be edited, updated, remanded, changed on a whim. We are living consciousness. We are not a terrorist organization as governments, demagogues, and the media would have you believe. At this time Anonymous is a consciousness focused on campaigning peacefully for Freedom of Speech.
We ask the world to support us, not for our sake, but for your own.
When governments control freedom they control you .The Internet is the last bastion of freedom in this evolving technical world. The Internet is capable of connecting us all.
When we are connected we are strong. When we are strong we have power. When we have power we are able to do the impossible. This is why the government is moving on Wikileaks. This is what they fear. They fear our power when we unite. Do not forget this.
„…Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.”
– Monsignor, Boondock Saints
Anonymous’ intentions are very clear. We are not vigilantes, regardless of the sentiment of quoting Boondock Saints, we are people on a campaign for freedom.
Anonymous’ intentions are to change the current way the governments of the world and the people view true Freedom of Speech and The Internet. Anonymous is willing, ready, and able to campaign for the freedom for all. We are campaigning right now as you read the news, watch the television, fight with your significant other, love your children, hate your neighbor, criticize the man or woman next to you. We are campaigning.
The goal is simple: Win the right to keep the Internet free of any control from any entity, corporation, or government. We will do this until our, proverbial, dying breath. We do this not only for our selves, but for the world and its people at large.
„Truth is treason in the empire of lies.”
– Ron Paul
Pay attention citizens, governments, and the world. Anonymous’ peaceful campaign will focus on any organization, corporation, government, or entity until the Internet is truly free.
Anonymous is doing what many successful campaigns have done in the past; a sit-in. It may be hard to comprehend, but a digital sit-in is our most effective method to show that all of us deserve Freedom of Speech and a free Internet. Our methods may appear, on the outside, to be cruel to those the entities that we are campaigning against, but remember by supporting censorship they are denying everyone a basic human right. Any person, corporation, government, or miscellaneous entity that stops supporting censorship and starts promoting Freedom of Speech and a free Internet will become our allies.
Anonymous, at this time, wants to persuade our counterparts rather than hurt them. We are campaigning for freedom for everyone, even the opposing side.
Do not fear us. Anonymous’ campaign does not intend to harm the individual citizen, any organizations, any websites, or government, that supports true freedom of speech. Anonymous’ past is not our present. We are here for all of you; to campaign for all of you. Where others have made this promise and failed; we make this promise and aim to keep it for everyone.
Anything attributed, credited, or tagged to Anonymous is not always what we do. We arenot always the same consciousness on a yearly, monthly, or even hourly basis. Do not believe everything you hear or read on the news. Anonymous is often credited with actions that are not campaigned for by Anonymous. The true core of Anonymous is here to help the free world for now. Anonymous wishes to represent the truth and ask that you as a citizen, media organization, or government do the same.

Fabrica de Aripi: WikiLeaks, Assange si cat de repede se misca unii

Unii chiar se misca repede si actioneaza. Ca mai jos; oameni din publishing, juridic si politic au publicat o scrisoare deschisa , unindu-se in jurul unui principiu: orice om are dreptul la un tratament corect. In text se atrage atentia ca „metode extrajudiciare” ( presiunile politice ce declanseaza alte actiuni si nu pe cele juridice) „care erau considerate demult ca fiind de neconceput – rapirea si tortura, de exemplu” au ajuns sa devina normalitate.

Ar fi interesant de retinut faptul ca, in ciuda dezvaluirilor de pana acum, cele legate de banci, Afganistan, etc, nici o parte „vatamata” nu a deschis vreun proces catre WikiLeaks, oricat de tare i-a durut! Si stiti de ce? Pentru ca este legal ceea ce fac, este vorba despre libertatea de exprimare si liberul aces la informatiile de interes public, iar cei expusi au o problema: documentele publicate arata ca „munca”, actiunile lor dauneaza rau de tot interesului public. In SUA exista legea whistle-blowers conceputa exact pentru a crea acel anonimat necesar ca miscarile, actiunile ce aduc prejudicii masei largi de populatie sa ajunga la lumina. Mai multe detalii  pe pagina Reporteri fara Frontiere.

Daca PayPal, Visa, Mastercard, Facebook (care a inchis acum cateva minute pagina grupului Operation Payback ) ar fi coerente ca si politica (asta ca sa nu spun ca doar au executat cumintele ordinele stapanirii din SUA) si daca ceea ce a facut WikiLeaks si Assange ar fi pe bune ilegal (si nu doar incomod intereselor celor care se cred stapani de sclavi), atunci respectivele companii ar trebui sa opreasca procesarea platilor pentru New York Time, Time si TOTI ceilalti publisheri care au publicat Cablegate si au aratat si ilustrat actiunile SUA impotriva libertatii de exprimare si a accesului la informare. Ce parere aveti despre coperta Time? Sugestiv, nu?

Inainte  sa ne intoarcem la scrisoarea deschisa publicata pe ABC Australia, ar merita mentionat ca dupa inchiderea paginii pe Facebook, Twitter a trecut la restrictionarea informatiilor. In randurile de mai jos apare un aspect interesant: cine spune adevarul, cine ajuta adevarul sa iasa la lumina, poate fi clasificat ca terorist. Deci am ajuns in era in care adevarul este terorist si minciuna normalitate?

Open letter: To Julia Gillard, re Julian Assange

(Editor’s note: There’s no doubt that WikiLeaks and its figurehead-on-the-run Julian Assange are among the hottest items for discussion on the planet right now. Feelings are running high, and many in this country take the view that the Australian Government ought do more to assist its vilified, beleaguered citizen. Assange has become a cause celebre, as evidenced by the signatories to this open letter, a who’s who of sorts, from Noam Chomsky to Helen Garner…)

The authors write: We wrote the letter below because we believe that Julian Assange is entitled to all the protections enshrined in the rule of law – and that the Australian Government has an obligation to ensure he receives them. The signatures here have been collected in the course of a day-and-a-half, primarily from people in publishing, law and politics. The signatories hold divergent views about WikiLeaks and its operations. But they are united in a determination to see Mr Assange treated fairly. We know that many others would have liked to sign. But given the urgency of the situation, we though it expedient to publish now rather than collect more names. If, however, you agree with the sentiments expressed, we encourage you to leave your name in the comments section.

Dear Prime Minister,

We note with concern the increasingly violent rhetoric directed towards Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.

“We should treat Mr Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him,” writes conservative columnist Jeffrey T Kuhner in the Washington Times.

William Kristol, former chief of staff to vice president Dan Quayle, asks, “Why can’t we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are?”

“Why isn’t Julian Assange dead?” writes the prominent US pundit Jonah Goldberg. “The CIA should have already killed Julian Assange,” says John Hawkins on the Right Wing News site.

Sarah Palin, a likely presidential candidate, compares Assange to an Al Qaeda leader; Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator and potential presidential contender, accuses Assange of “terrorism”.

And so on and so forth. Such calls cannot be dismissed as bluster. Over the last decade, we have seen the normalisation of extrajudicial measures once unthinkable, from ‘extraordinary rendition’ (kidnapping) to ‘enhanced interrogation’ (torture).

In that context, we now have grave concerns for Mr Assange’s wellbeing. Irrespective of the political controversies surrounding WikiLeaks, Mr Assange remains entitled to conduct his affairs in safety, and to receive procedural fairness in any legal proceedings against him.

As is well known, Mr Assange is an Australian citizen. We therefore call upon you to condemn, on behalf of the Australian Government, calls for physical harm to be inflicted upon Mr Assange, and to state publicly that you will ensure Mr Assange receives the rights and protections to which he is entitled, irrespective of whether the unlawful threats against him come from individuals or states.

We urge you to confirm publicly Australia’s commitment to freedom of political communication; to refrain from cancelling Mr Assange’s passport, in the absence of clear proof that such a step is warranted; to provide assistance and advocacy to Mr Assange; and do everything in your power to ensure that any legal proceedings taken against him comply fully with the principles of law and procedural fairness.

A statement by you to this effect should not be controversial – it is a simple commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law. We believe this case represents something of a watershed, with implications that extend beyond Mr Assange and WikiLeaks. In many parts of the globe, death threats routinely silence those who would publish or disseminate controversial material. If these incitements to violence against Mr Assange, a recipient of Amnesty International’s Media Award, are allowed to stand, a disturbing new precedent will have been established in the English-speaking world.

In this crucial time, a strong statement by you and your Government can make an important difference.

We look forward to your response.

Dr Jeff Sparrow, author and editor Lizzie O’Shea, Social Justice Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Professor Noam Chomsky, writer and academic Antony Loewenstein, journalist and author Mungo MacCallum, journalist and writer Professor Peter Singer, author and academic Adam Bandt, MP Senator Bob Brown Senator Scott Ludlam Julian Burnside QC, barrister Jeff Lawrence, Secretary, Australian Council of Trade Unions Professor Raimond Gaita, author and academic Rob Stary, lawyer Lieutenant Colonel (ret) Lance Collins, Australian Intelligence Corps, writer The Hon Alastair Nicholson AO RFD QC Brian Walters SC, barrister Professor Larissa Behrendt, academic Emeritus Professor Stuart Rees, academic, Sydney Peace Foundation Mary Kostakidis, Chair, Sydney Peace Foundation Professor Wendy Bacon, journalist Christos Tsiolkas, author James Bradley, author and journalist Julian Morrow, comedian and television producer Louise Swinn, publisher Helen Garner, novelist Professor Dennis Altman, writer and academic Dr Leslie Cannold, author, ethicist, commentator John Birmingham, writer Guy Rundle, writer Alex Miller, writer Sophie Cunningham, editor and author Castan Centre for Human Rights Law Professor Judith Brett, author and academic Stephen Keim SC, President of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights Phil Lynch, Executive Director, Human Rights Law Resource Centre Sylvia Hale, MLC Sophie Black, editor David Ritter, lawyer and historian Dr Scott Burchill, writer and academic Dr Mark Davis, author and academic Henry Rosenbloom, publisher Ben Naparstek, editor Chris Feik, editor Louise Swinn, publisher Stephen Warne, barrister Dr John Dwyer QC Hilary McPhee, writer, publisher Joan Dwyer OAM Greg Barns, barrister James Button, journalist Owen Richardson, critic Michelle Griffin, editor John Timlin, literary Agent & producer Ann Cunningham, lawyer and publisher Alison Croggon, author, critic Daniel Keene, playwright Dr Nick Shimmin, editor/writer Bill O’Shea, lawyer, former President, Law Institute of Victoria Dianne Otto, Professor of Law, Melbourne Law School Professor Frank Hutchinson,Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPACS), University of Sydney Anthony Georgeff, editor Max Gillies, actor Shane Maloney, writer Louis Armand, author and publisher Jenna Price, academic and journalist Tanja Kovac, National Cooordinator EMILY’s List Australia Dr Russell Grigg, academic Dr Justin Clemens, writer and academic Susan Morairty, Lawyer David Hirsch, Barrister Cr Anne O’Shea Kathryn Crosby, Candidates Online Dr Robert Sparrow, academic Jennifer Mills, author Foong Ling Kong, editor Tim Norton,  Online Campaigns Co-ordinator,  Oxfam Australia Elisabeth Wynhausen, writer Ben Slade, Lawyer Nikki Anderson, publisher Dan Cass Professor Diane Bell, author and academic Dr Philipa Rothfield, academic Gary Cazalet, academic Dr David Coady, academic Dr Matthew Sharpe, writer and academic Dr Tamas Pataki, writer and academic Miska Mandic Associate Professor Jake Lynch, academic Professor Simon During, academic Michael Brull, writer Dr Geoff Boucher, academic Jacinda Woodhead, writer and editor Dr Rjurik Davidson, writer and editor Mic Looby, writer Jane Gleeson-White, writer and editor Alex Skutenko, editor Associate Professor John Collins, academic Professor Philip Pettit, academic Dr Christopher Scanlon, writer and academic Dr Lawrie Zion, journalist Johannes Jakob, editor Sunili Govinnage, lawyer Michael Bates, lawyer Bridget Maidment, editor Bryce Ives, theatre director Sarah Darmody, writer Jill Sparrow, writer Lyn Bender, psychologist Meredith Rose, editor Dr Ellie Rennie, President, Engage Media Ryan Paine, editor Simon Cooper, editor Chris Haan, lawyer Carmela Baranowska, journalist. Clinton Ellicott, publisher Dr Charles Richardson, writer and academic Phillip Frazer, publisher Geoff Lemon, journalist Jaya Savige, poet and editor Johannes Jakob, editor Kate Bree Geyer; journalist Chay-Ya Clancy, performer Lisa Greenaway, editor, writer Chris Kennett – screenwriter, journalist Kasey Edwards, author Dr. Janine Little, academic Dr Andrew Milner, writer and academic Patricia Cornelius, writer Elisa Berg, publisher Lily Keil, editor Jenny Sinclair Roselina Rose Stephen Luntz PM Newton Bryan Cooke Kristen Obaid Ryan Haldane-Underwood Patrick Gardner Robert Sinnerbrink Kathryn Millist Anne Coombs Karen Pickering Sarah Mizrahi Suzanne Ingleton Jessica Crouch Michael Ingleton Matt Griffin Jane Allen Tom Curtis John Connell David Garland Stuart Hall Meredith Tucker-Evans Phil Perkins Alexandra Adsett Tom Doig, editor Beth Jackson Peter Mattessi Robert Sinnerbrink Greg Black Paul Ashton Sigi Jottkandt Kym Connell, lawyer Silma Ihram Nicole Papaleo, lawyer Melissa Forbes Matthew Ryan Ben Gook Daniel East Bridget Ikin Lisa O’Connell Melissa Cranenburgh John Bryson Michael Farrell Melissa Reeves Dr Emma Cox Michael Green Margherita Tracanelli David Carlin, writer Bridget McDonnell Geoff Page, writer Rebecca Interdonato Roxane Ludbrook-Ingleton Stefan Caramia Ash Plummer