I feel like you're missing GP's point. Even if we stipulate that leaks are in the public interest (inasmuch as they expose corruption), selective leaks give an undue amount of power to the person deciding what to leak. If we were getting a similar number of leaks from the DNC, RNC, USA, non-USA, etc. I honestly wouldn't have a problem with it. When the leaks are all focused in one direction though, it looks less like journalism and more like propaganda.
That's separate from the question of whether it's criminal though. I haven't read the indictment yet and don't have an opinion on that.
You're not wrong but there's nothing to be done about it. You either have freedom of speech/press or you don't, you can't have "freedom of speech as long as you're fair".
What people seem to be missing here is, the ideals the community held when we lined up behind and helped propel Wikileaks forward went far beyond freedom of speech—it was deeply anti-propaganda, it was deeply anti-power, the releasing of all information— Julian made a conscious choice to become the monster we were all fighting, a propagandist who selectively hid information or selectively amplified certain information—this is quite literally the same thing we were fighting to stop.
We’re lining back up to fight for his freedom of speech, but he will forever be a study in why we must metaphorically “kill your idols.” Anyone who knows what we were fighting for knows that Julian abandoned the freedom of information cause long ago.
...undue amount of power to the person deciding what to leak.
Totally with you on this. How is Assange the exemplar for this problem, when scores of people in government, law enforcement, military, unsupervised services, etc. leak their opinions to journalists every week, anonymously? Journalists should challenge these leaks rather than taking dictation.
That's separate from the question of whether it's criminal though. I haven't read the indictment yet and don't have an opinion on that.