As one of the team at social media agency Punch, I tend to keep a close eye on stories in the press, and I'd bet that there aren't many people online who have missed the recent story regarding WikiLeaks and the release of thousands of confidential documents. The story and indeed the furore around it have been a big topic of conversation on social networks across the world for the past couple of days. The general feeling is that whilst the leakage was naturally designed to remind the US government that they aren't invincible, this may have done infinitely more damage than it has good.
The minute threads of hope that currently suspend relations between a number of the countries referenced in the leaked information are now probably stretched as far as they have ever been. Although the press has for a long time been seen as a watchdog on society and indeed the governments of their respective populace, has WikiLeaks overstepped the mark on this occasion?
The opportunities for freedom of speech presented by the online world have resulted in individuals from all over the planet being able to contribute to debates and offer their own perspective, regardless of whether they're a journalist or not. Obviously it is up to the reader to qualify the accuracy and value in what commentators in the online world say, and similarly to the press, those commentators with the most accurate and valuable input are those that get the most readers. However, in the instance of WikiLeaks, it's the lack of an official regulatory authority that has resulted in an online commentator overstepping the line.
Obviously the Press Complaints Commission deals with the press in the real world, providing an official Code of Conduct for Editors and dealing with complaints from the public. If an Editor oversteps the line, then they are subject to the consequences of what they publish and must pay the price accordingly. At present, no such organization exists for the internet. Bloggers and other online commentators are free to write what they like, and indeed publish whatever materials they deem to be of interest to their audience. From this perspective WikiLeaks has done nothing wrong, the content is obviously of huge interest to a wide range of people. However, it seems that it has shown a complete disregard for the grand scheme of the information detailed in the leak.
Although the idea of a third World War is conceivable considering the revelations within the leaked documents, I think that to some extent this could be the press being slightly sensationalist to sell material. The point remains though, that WikiLeaks has almost certainly dealt damage to international relations all over the world, some of it almost irreparable. The questions I ask are these; did Wikileaks have the right to do that on the behalf of freedom of speech considering it's implications across the world, and would this have happened were there a regulatory body in place to maintain a balance?
The issue of policing internet content is obviously a much discussed one which isn't to be taken lightly, the resource required would be immense. You could argue that in today's world, greater caution should have been taken to ensure that these documents weren't leaked, but equally there is an argument that WikiLeaks shouldn't have published them, as it could be to the detriment of many. Either way, these events lend significant weight to the argument that the internet does need regulation, as some individuals will see it as within their remit to take matters into their own hands. The internet and its users will always have conflicting agendas, and there will always be online vigilantes or "Hacktivists" like "The Jester" (th3j35t3r on Twitter) who will act on their own motives, but ultimately, there should be a greater, much broader sense of right and wrong online. As a responsible organization, consisting of responsible people, Wikileaks has acted rather irresponsibly on this occasion.