Discerning the legal difference between what WikiLeaks did and what news organizations do is difficult and would set a terrible precedent.

In the United States, whatever you may think of Julian Assange, even people who are not necessarily big fans of his are very concerned about the way in which the United States government and some companies have handled Wikileaks.

Why do we even need WikiLeaks? They're not the only organization that publishes leaks. And they don't have some special technology that allows them to post on the Internet with mirrored sites. The idea of WikiLeaks lives on, but as an organization, it's become increasingly irrelevant.

Saving Edward Snowden from prison is one of WikiLeaks' achievements of which I am most proud.

I'm a freedom of information campaigner, so obviously I support the cause of Wikileaks.

If WikiLeaks were a for-profit company, determining its real value would be a nearly impossible task.

If I had some information, the last thing I would ever do with it is send it to Wikileaks.

The owner of Wikileaks has gone mad or he has joined hands with our opposition parties to malign my government.

You know, in the WikiLeaks cables, the Chinese discovered that Kevin Rudd was urging the Americans to keep the military option open against them. This is hardly a friendly gesture.

WikiLeaks is not a news organization; it is a cell of activists that is releasing information designed to embarrass people in power.

The work of WikiLeaks is with principal documentary evidence; that's where the truth lies. It gets to the heart of the matter. It educates people and in turn empowers them.

There isn't much question that the person who obtained the WikiLeaks cables from a classified U.S. government network broke U.S. law and should expect to face the consequences. The legal rights of a website that publishes material acquired from that person, however, are much more controversial.

Wikileaks in its essence is a publisher, pure and simple. They were very much in the same position as 'The New York Times' and 'The Guardian.'

WikiLeaks exposed corruption, war crimes, torture and cover-ups. It showed that we were lied to about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; that the U.S. military had deliberately hidden information about systematic torture and civilian casualties, which were much higher than reported.

Some experts believe that somebody is deceiving WikiLeaks, that its reputation is being undermined in order for it to be used for political purposes.

WikiLeaks, God bless them, will save lives as a result of their actions.

WikiLeaks is what happens when the entire U.S. government is forced to go through a full-body scanner.

In the history of Wikileaks, nobody has claimed that the material being put out is not authentic.

In my role as Wikileaks editor, I've been involved in fighting off many legal attacks. To do that, and keep our sources safe, we have had to spread assets, encrypt everything, and move telecommunications and people around the world to activate protective laws in different national jurisdictions.

The 'conspiracy theorist' is no longer a crazy person with a tinfoil hat, but they are the Edward Snowdens and the WikiLeaks that bring down major institutions and are the catalysts for social change.