If you believe that The Law defines what is right and wrong, then surely it can never be right to change The Law? Maybe you don't actually believe that, but I think it is important to consider just how large the gap between The Law and What Is Right has been, at various times in the past, and in various places.
The Law is how we define 'Right and Wrong' in the civil sense, it's all we have.
Obviously, we us a moral sensibility in the community, but that's more nuanced.
Laws change all of the time, especially as different cases with different characteristics are brought before the courts and they set precedent.
Assange is accused of working with people to hack into sensitive systems in which gigabytes of arbitrary government data were stolen and published.
If true, this is definitely within the realm of what we would generally accepted to be illegal, there's not going to be much controversy there.
The issue is whether or not Assange has actually committed a crime, and to what extent his prosecution is political.
I suggest we'll be able to get a sense for that when he is put on trial and the evidence is presented.
If it turns out the FBI paid a guy to lie about him, and that's all the evidence they have, then Assange will walk away a free man, but otherwise we'll have to wait to see the evidence.
