I was thinking today about how there have been a number of scandals with the government just this year alone and I just don't get it. Is the Freedom of Speech limited to an institution's varying degree's of sensitivity to a matter? Is it applicable more so on a state level than on a federal one? How is it that Jerry Brown gets to become governor for helping the little city of Bell get justice from the corrupt city officials, yet Julian Assange's leaking of official government documents that are of "sensitive" nature lands him on the brink of being charged with espionage? Like the City of Bell thing crushed the city's reputation, but Bell is a small, poor, Hispanic community that no one cares about, but still Jerry Brown gets praised for helping bring the residents justice and I mean I get that people get offended with the whole Wikileaks thing because it affects our national credibilty, but to deem it as a "terrorist organization" because they publish material that the government doesn't like? I mean, I've seen the cables and it's nothing that's really out of the ordinary in terms of common knowledge, but it's just seen as bad because it shows the government's "official" takes on certain topics. Even though the impact of Wikileaks is obviously more severe than that as Bell, from a legal standpoint, how does it differ, in terms of free speech? I mean, the complaint of wikileaks is more so the content than it is the legitimacy, so they can't accuse Wikileaks of libel because they're real documents. But how is it that free speech doesn't apply to Wikileaks because people don't like the content? How is it legal that they be prosecuted for that? I know there are exceptions to free speech, such as screaming "fire" in a crowded room, but what's the exception for Assange? Like the LA Times reporters and the City of Bell thing, they're exposing corruption in a small area, but is it just because it's on a wider scale that the government feels it's okay to keep people from knowing the truth?