I haven't written much about WikiLeaks, but I think there are two separate issues: one is the First Amendment, and the other goes to the damaging nature of the leaks (often called "national security").

It's pretty basic that the right to say or publish something does not make saying or publishing it right. The principle is grounded in common sense, and it applies to ordinary speech like profane, or foul and abusive language in a similar manner. I support the right of people to use extreme words and terms I would never use, and as I support the right of people to publish material even though when a good argument can be made that it clearly damages national security.
(Interestingly, the leakers themselves don't seem all that committed to the principle of free speech; quelling and silencing the opposition is fine for me, but evil for thee!)

Of course, not everyone thinks the WikiLeaks damage national security. Some -- and Ron Paul is a good example -- think that the truth should always be welcome, no matter how damaging it may be.

"In a free society we're supposed to know the truth," Paul said. "In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble. And now, people who are revealing the truth are getting into trouble for it."

"This whole notion that Assange, who's an Australian, that we want to prosecute him for treason. I mean, aren't they jumping to a wild conclusion?" he added. "This is media, isn't it? I mean, why don't we prosecute The New York Times or anybody that releases this?"

Paul followed up with a post to his Twitter account Friday morning: "Re: WikiLeaks -- In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble."

But certainly in the present context, the leaks have to be seen as harming the United States, regardless of what the various and ultimate "truths" turn out to be. That there is plenty of material containing plenty of truths to debate for the next few decades is undeniable. The debate centers on whether the leaks are helpful or harmful, and again, that depends on perspective.

What is truth, anyway?

Consider the way WikiLeak lover Glenn Greenwald excoriates the American majority for disagreeing with him:

Just for a sense of how pervasive these lies about WikiLeaks have become, consider this Pew poll from today, which purports to find that 60% of Americans believe the latest WikiLeaks disclosure harms the public interest, while only 31% believe it helps it (apparently, a majority of Americans demand: keep us ignorant about what our Government is doing in the world!!). But the whole poll is grounded in an absolute falsehood: the Pew release refers to "the WikiLeaks website's release of a huge trove of classified document"; describes "the release of thousands of secret State Department communications"; and praises the public for "make[ing] a distinction between WikiLeaks itself and the press' handling of the document release"

I guess that means the WikiLeaks Wiki page is lying. Along with millions, I have been led to believe that the leaking of official documents was the whole idea:

In October, the group released a package of almost 400,000 documents called the Iraq War Logs in coordination with major commercial media organisations. In November 2010, WikiLeaks began releasing U.S. State department diplomatic cables.

Now that I know I've been duped, I can sleep easier.

MORE: In light of my earlier post in which I discuss my reluctance to get involved in a Tea Party war that some non-Tea Partyers want to start, I find myself wondering whether -- and to what extent -- WikiLeaks ought to be considered "a Tea Party issue."

I don't think it is. But that does not mean that individual Tea Partyers might not have a multiplicity of strong opinions on the subject. In my area, many of them would agree with Ron Paul, and some of them might very well label those on the other side to be warmongering neocons. What that means is that it just isn't likely to be a Tea Party issue.

Nor is it a major issue for the overall public, as this chart indicates:

People are slightly interested, and only slightly less interested than they are in "Don't Ask Don't Tell." Single digits.

Hey, maybe the double digit issues are where the consensus truly lies....

MORE: Via Glenn Reynolds, Perry de Havilland explains why he dislikes Assange but nonetheless supports WikiLeaks:

If you think the state is too powerful, yet you do not want to see the state damaged by systemic attacks like Assange's Wikileaks, then presumably you think the state's power can be trimmed back significantly within the system. Indeed this was long my hope as I am a minarchist and thus see some role for the state in keeping barbarian hordes at bay, preventing plagues and putting out fires (the 'nightwatchman state')... but I think now that the idea this roll back of modern pervasive regulatory statism could ever be achieved via democratic politics is not just naive but verges on delusional.