Adding to what I noted before; some might defend the content and say that the government(s) wouldn't be trying to get it shut down if they really were lies; and there might be some truth to that. But I think the basic tenet that is used to defend the site's idea is that the entire concept of democracy, which Canada/US/U.K and other countries generally describe themselves as, is that you have a fundamental right to criticize your government, since they are in effect being paid to represent us to the world, and to govern the development of the nation. And a common theme is that the government trying to close it down is "a hint at true corruption" however, at the same time, you can't just have people going around willy nilly, spreading (possibly) lies about political figures; since somebody may garner enough support to overthrow the government and put something even worse into place *cough* Lenin *cough*; The only thing a revolution needs is the peoples support, and what better way to garner that support then to spread half-truths about those who do have power in order to get some of your own.
Of course, I'm not saying that the founders are trying to take over the world or anything; they probably are doing this out of their own spirit of democracy, but as with anything you can take a right too far. After all, while democracy is often the government that promotes freedom, there are still lines that you cannot cross; you aren't free to kill somebody, for example; theft, etc; some may claim these as natural moral barriers, but they have to be defined in black and white; that is, in effect, the sole problem with any form of government; it's impossible to actually put down in the charter of rights and freedoms or the constitution, in black and white, how flexible a right is or exactly how far reaching it is; if a judgement or court tells somebody "no, you've gone to far with that right" it doesn't necessarily mean that we are entering an opressive regime, it could very well mean, that in that instance, despite the fact that the rights/abilities of the person may seem to be black and white, there is a point where you are infringing on others rights; remember that even if they are parts of our government, they are still people protected by our constitutions/charters and have the very same rights as we do; of course, exercising their position to squelch this type of this is somewhat irresponsible, but while any of us "proletariat" can say "oh, I'd never do that myself, I'd be good and honourable" It's really impossible to say what we would truly do in such a situation, especially if we know they are flat out lies and they are being read by millions of people who are simply gobbling it all up. For all we know it's filled with just as many subjective observations and plain old opinions as they are facts; It's a lot easier to fabricate evidence then to find it, especially when your identity is protected. Really all the content has the implicit suggestion that "we got this from a reliable source". If the mainstream news was to report on this, they need more then a pinky-swear that it's legit. (of course, some may suggest at this point that the mainstream media is a puppet of the government, but of course such a claim would require some sort of evidence, something which conspiracies seem to lack except of course in the vague handwavey "well it sort of looks like it might have...." way.)
In fact, in a related manner there is that other topic/poster who was raving about how the Chinese are issueing cyber-terrorism attacks from our printers. Some of their material is from Wikileaks, and from what they quoted being rather inaccurate I rather hope that's not the journalistic quality of all the material found there.
In either case, do I regard these people as criminals or terrorists? I have to say no; specifically, the politicians affected could very well issue defamation of character and other charges against them and take it properly through the courts, as anybody else would have to; abusing their political status to expedite the removal of the information only perpetuates and fuels any number of ludicrous theories, and makes people more likely to believe the content they read there, even that which is questionably reliable. If you read derogatory comments about yourself being read and believed by millions, would you not be angry? Often times, when we are faced with a situation or conflict, we simply react. Sometimes this can lead to empty threats (such as the aforementioned calls for his death) but a immediate reaction is oftentimes an overreaction; if the dog gets in the garbage, some people might say "I'm going to kill you dog!" or something to that effect, but they never actually mean it. Given the fact that despite our desires to believe otherwise politicians are in fact people it's not to over the top to think they might have a human reaction to a situation.
of course, as I believe has been noted in another post, the main problem with the internet is that there is just as much disinformation as there is information; for the most part, the people posting the disinformation aren't doing so on purpose, but rather regurgitating what they read elsewhere; the more extravagant the claim/lie, the more likely it is to spread. However, often the truth isn't quite as exciting. Needless to say the truth is often neglected in favour of a fantastic fiction.
