"Publishing evidence of state crimes, as Assange’s Wikileaks organisation has done, is covered by both free speech and public interest defences. Publishing evidence furnished by whistleblowers is at the heart of any journalism that aspires to hold power to account and in check".

Damn right. The treatment of Assange has dealt a terrible blow to the possibility of exposing criminal doings in the military, corporations, political parties, whatever. It sets the example that whistleblowers will not be protected.

So how did we end up here? Maybe many reasons but primarily I think maybe the Assange case is indicative of what might happen if you enter into the business of exposing corruption, and not restrict your exposures to one direction only. It will by necessity alienate any powerful interests that might protect you.

As it stands, only principled people side with Assange, people who insist that core democratic principles should trump the shortsighted interests of the state. Such people are few and far between nowadays, but are normally thought to be populating the courts, at least at higher levels, which is the last straw we can cling to.

But with a partisan press that has turned their backs on Assange there is hardly any pressure on the courts to do the right thing.