For my part of the perspective on this matter, it isn’t about specific politicians, prominent figures, nor the ideological divide of the so-called 2 party (preferred) political system.
Left or right of the ideological/political divide, they can be ultimately viewed as the same, often with minor differences or how these ‘differences’ are presented to the public. Maybe one is more articulate than the other ... more media/PR savvy, ETC...
Nor it seems about ‘wearing a condom’ - though, apparently, the Pope allowed wearing the condom, reportedly, in recent mainstream media, and in certain cases ...
As for Feminists, particularly, most Westerbn feminist organisations, it has been a lost cause for decades vis a vis the enduring plight of the women in the ME. There have been & are so many anamolies, I wouldn’t know where to begin ... Even in the ME, there are & can be vast differences. For example, one can hardly compare the perspective, culture, traditions, and actions of many Iranian women to those of their counterparts in Arab countries. There are very distinct differences ... (another subject/topic).
Maybe it is about the hypocricy of it all - pointing the finger at someone they call a ‘low life’. And, that politicians, at the very least & often can Not be any better. In fact, politicians (formal & informal) are often much worse than the so-called ‘low life’.
I should think most people would object or be pissed off if their email account, for example, was accessed publicly.
But, in this case, it isn’t about ‘personal stuff’. It, to me, appears to be about what we are told as ordinary citizens Vs. what actually takes place & we are fed by official govts & the mainstream media.
Obviously, there is a fine line between what is considered anarchy vs. democratic rights to access info that is our right to Know.
Assange and/or wikileaks is certainly controversial. And, in a way, perhaps an equalizer in this case & for the last abovementioned paragraph.
Hammer, meet Nail.
We've endured countless threadbare references to the real, and supposed evils of "the military/industrial complex," but my experience is that "the government/media complex" is FAR more pervasive, and nefarious.
So, THANK YOU for exposing the real core of this.
I want to rephrase your observation as a question, and engage the central hypothetical that now fairly screams for our attention:
In a Representative Republic where government is SUPPOSED TO BE "of the people, by the people, and for the people," and leaving aside the question of whether it actually is or isn't, IS THERE ANY information about the activities of said government that should NOT be made public; whether in real time, or very shortly following said activity? Is there even a legitimate need for a State with a citizen government to have any "State secrets"?
IOW is it, in fact, the case that there is a legitimate need for our form of government to keep to itself information about its activities? If the contention is that such a need does exist, then exactly what kinds of activities are SO delicate that the voters cannot be permitted to know about them?