Mjölnir's Copy/Poppy Queries - By Matt the Magnificent and Paul the Irrepressible

1. The article talks about could have negative effects on society, and WikiLeaks can really be prosecuted legally.  It also mentions past attempts to prosecute news sources that rather than procuring illegal things reprinted them when they were given to them as a source, accusing them of colluding with the theif and activly trying to procure the items.  At the end, the speaker takes a very critical position when descriping President Obama.
2. The main issue we have is disagreeing over whether it's legal/fair for WikiLeaks to be prosocuted for publishing the stolen material, as other groups haven't been prosecuted in such manner in the past.  We're arguing over whether WikiLeaks is just publishing whatever's given to it, regardless of whether it's stolen, and that they're just trying to find a roundabout way to censor the press or if WikiLeaks essentially promotes stealing information from governments and should be prevented from doing this, as to not promote violating theft laws.
3. Free speech has really been defined so many times by different people in different ways, so it doesn't really mean anything anymore, and it really isn't a 'human right', since one can't really define what a 'human right' is, since standards of 'rights' and what's permissible or not are always changing.  Nobody really has the 'right' do define what's allowed to reach the public and what isn't, but more of a matter of who has power at that time, and what do they want to do with it.  Media again, is just another display of somebody having power, and deciding what they feel their job is and what they want to say.  Essentially, the media can't be obligated to do anything by the public, and it just does what the rich person who owns it tells them to do.  The article raises the question with censorship of whether probable cause is a reason to censor something.
4. It isn't clear cut or definable, and it prevents people from getting information which may alter their decisions.  Also, it questions how far governments can reach and control their citizens, and effect the paradox of people hating their government controlling them but not wanting to be left doing things 'all by themselves'.