I don't think the choice is as stark as Naughton phrases it, but it does contemplate what I have been warning those who see WikiLeaks as the start down the road to total transparency about. It is just as likely, if not more so, that WikiLeaks will result in a further restriction of information flow, rather than greater disclosure, and wouldn't that be a "delicious irony."
The question of whether WikiLeaks is a good or bad thing (or something in between) should not be tied to Assange's guilt or innocence in the Swedish sex crime case, but there will be an unwarranted and unavoidable connection between the two. Should he be found guilty, there will be some who transfer his guilt to WikiLeaks and if he is acquitted, there will be some who insist that the verdict is somehow an exoneration of WikiLeaks as well as Assange.
For good or bad, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are, at the moment, inextricably intertwined. In fact, it is for this reason, some of his WikiLeak colleagues have split from him an attempting to start up a separate site/movement.
The question of Assange's guilt or innocence as respects the Swedish sex crime charges, however, goes directly to the question of whether or not Julian Assange is a good or bad person, and whatever good may be attributed to WikiLeaks should not be transferred to Assange in considering the sex crimes.
As it is, the charges fit very nicely in the narrative that has Assange being unjustly persecuted by powerful global forces, and if it turns out that he is guilty, the part about coordinated governmental decisions and actions will not necessarily be disproved. However, the fact will be that he is as guilty as the findings of a Swedish court can make one, and whether or not someone who is not Julian Assange could have committed the crimes without being charged will be immaterial as respects his guilt.
Eltham is understandably disturbed, particularly if he considers himself a liberal feminist, to find those whom he would have expected to take these charges seriously, instead making light of them.
This is yet another instance where self-described feminists reveal that politics transcend principle. The leftist political reflexes of Naomi Wolf draw her to whatever side lines up against the governments of Western free market economies, and in this case, that's Julian Assange. What is so disappointing, I'm sure, to Eltham though is not that she is siding with Assange but that in doing so she so easily assumes the conduct feminists roundly condemn in sex crime cases: disparaging the victims and minimizing their allegations.
If this came as a surprise to him, I guess he didn't follow the careers of Bill Clinton or Teddy Kennedy.