> When it was done with the intent of influencing the 2016 election

Reality check - partisan newspapers, news channels, and news organizations publish partisan nonsense with the intent of influencing elections. All the time.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, freedom of speech does not mean 'Freedom of unbiased speech.' If it did, then you could shut down the entire media establishment tomorrow.

That's sounds like a political opinion that you just stated. Why are you trying to meddle in the political process, by engaging in political speech?

Unlike you, the law does make a distinction between expressing political opinion and unlawful interference with election process and we have independent judicial system to apply those laws.

Indeed it does have a distinction.

And the distinction is usually as follows: speech that threatens or criticises those in power is generally illegal, and the speech that supports it is legal.

So then was it illegal when msnbc aired the infamous Trump video saying “grab them by the p...”? That was clearly meant to influence the election...

First, that was the Washington Post that released the tape, and second, that is more for the fitness of the candidate (at the time). Third, and more importantly, it was obtained legally, without having to break in to a server to get it.

> second, that is more for the fitness of the candidate (at the time)

How are we distinguishing influencing the election and fitness of the candidate? I'm not seeing a substantive difference between the two, other that the source (if anything, their campaign practices seem more relevant).

Wikileaks didn’t break into the server. No one knows how the emails were obtained. Your reply demonstrates your hypocrisy nicely. Clearly you just don’t like what Wikileaks has to say.