The Sex Party today confirmed its support for Wikileaks, condemning efforts that would restrict the openness of the internet and limit freedom of speech on political and civil matters.

Fiona Patten, Sex Party convenor, called for greater government transparency in response to the leaks rather than increased government secrecy.

“Fundamentally, Wikileaks is a news organisation and should be treated as such,” said Ms Patten.  “Had a journalist in a traditional media organisation obtained these documents they would certainly have been published and it would be called ‘investigative journalism’.

“Any efforts to curtail Wikileaks’ ability to publish this information are as serious an affront to freedom of speech as limits on what can be published in your daily newspaper.”

The Sex Party expresses concern that freedoms and protections that have long been afforded to communication prior to the advent of modern technology are not being extended to the internet.  Ms Patten continued, “There is a tendency to perceive online activities as somehow fundamentally different to offline activities.  In the context of the long history of independent media, Wikileaks’ publications are only exceptional in terms of their volume, which would have been difficult to achieve in the past.

“The way governments react will create a precedent.  Given that new media has already substantially replaced traditional news sources, a failure to extend respect and protection of the integrity of online publications will have far reaching consequences for freedom of speech."

Ms Patten called on the government to improve its transparency in response to the leaks, rather than to increase secrecy.  “The public has a very real and very reasonable interest in matters of state,” she said.  “The government should recognise this and end the culture of secrecy that is increasingly permeating all levels of the executive.”

The Sex Party also extended criticism to organisations such as Visa and Mastercard who were acting unilaterally to harm Wikileaks, despite no law having been identified as violated and the absence of any appeal process or judicial oversight.  “It’s bad enough that we have governments impinging on our freedoms,” said Ms Patten.  “Just who the hell are stock-exchange listed companies to determine what is right and what is wrong to publish on the internet?

“We’ve known for decades that the advent of the internet has put our society on the precipice of major change,” concluded Ms Patten. “As this new medium of communication matures, so must we.  Our enhanced ability to share ideas and information is at a vital crossroads.  We must protect the openness of the internet and avoid the path that leads to silenced criticism and regulated speech.”