Yesterday afternoon’s special Crikey edition on David Hicks elicited a strong reader response:

Stephen Morris writes: Congratulations on your Special Edition. As you are doubtless aware this edition is a clear breach of David Hicks’s plea agreement 26 March 2007, specifically “I agree that this includes any direct or indirect communication made by me, my family members, my assigns, or any other third party made on my behalf.” You are clearly acting as a “third party” on his behalf, I look forward to the Australian (& USA?) government observing the terms of the agreement and returning (or retaining David Hicks in Guantanamo Bay) and also invoking the appropriate punishment for Crikey as a result of Crikey “providing material support to a terrorist organisation” (which David Hicks now clearly has admitted belonging to).

James Nash writes: Not very original, I’m afraid. Frank Packer did something very similar with the old Sydney Daily Telegraph during WW2 after that champion of Labor party ideology, Arthur Caldwell, did much the same to some item of war news as has been done to prevent Hicks making any comment on his immediate past.

Colin Duck writes: How juvenile!

Doug Clark writes: Will I get arrested for reading that?

John Horner writes: Don’t waste my time sending me non-events like today’s Crikey. Any more like that and you can keep your subscription.

Leigh Barrett writes: While I am pleased that you have made something of an attempt to delve deeper into an issue, it is a shame that you are playing the smart ar-e. This is an issue that goes to the heart of our democracy and freedom for each and every Australian. It needs serious journalism and comment especially if you want to be taken seriously in the media.

Cameron Lyon writes: Have I missed something here? Your special David Hicks edition does not exist! Only headings, no text. Have I missed the joke?

Tony Benner writes: You are getting very close to losing me as a subscriber.

Jim Spithill writes: Devastating.

Amber Cerny writes: I can’t read this special edition of Crikey on Hicks. Is it my browser blocking the content?

Nigel Brunel writes: My comments are as follows:

Peter Wilms writes: I read every item of your special edition on David Hicks over and over and must say I learned a great deal about the dispensation of justice in both the United States and Australia. From the depth of reporting and commentary contained in the edition, David Hicks received what we like to regard as a fair go. I mean five years in a hell hole without charge and finally a nine month sentence that takes him just beyond the next Federal election. And what about not being able to talk with the media about his ordeal for a period of 12 months? How democratic is that! I just loved the way you chose to ignore the sanctions imposed on him by running elucidating stories about the issues surrounding his incarceration. Hope you can put up with a visit from the Feds wanting to know just how you were able to come up with the plethora of material made public at last!

Joycie Strangio writes: Whilst I think the Hicks edition is very good and poignant, leave out the Adelaide sarcasm, unless, of course, you have lived here.  It’s a beautiful city and I’m sick to death of people bagging the place. I love Crikey and read it everyday, but, don’t insult your Adelaide-based readers.

Emily Byrne writes: I have been one of those lurking squatters to Crikey for over three years now. My, we must irritate you with our refusal to shell out reasonable amounts of cash for your frequently excellent publication. I’m sorry. But I just wanted to let you know that nothing has ever made me laugh harder, or made me more tempted to subscribe, than the sheer genius of your David Hicks special edition. Thanks very much. Yours in stingy but sincere appreciation.

Alan Jones writes: Could you give it to me in “dot point” form?

Stephen Matthews writes: Why your 21 David Hicks stories are blank. Pure accident perhaps. A trashy Crikey promotion for the real upcoming event? Some unsubtle attempt at humour?

Tina Bramley writes: Are prisoners allowed to vote in the next election?

Graham Dempster writes: How much did you have to pay for the information? And to whom did you pay it?

Nerida Haycock writes: I hope you publish some stats tomorrow on how quickly this email was opened …You is very funny mans.

Jason Atwal writes: Thank you for your special edition on David Hicks. Very interesting indeed. Whilst I agree that David Hicks could have been treated with a lot more respect and the situation could have been handled in a much better way, I do not subscribe to Crikey to receive this sort of rubbish! I don’t know how long it would take you to put this together, though I am sure whatever time it took could well have been spent on something that is much more interesting from a journalistic point of view. I originally subscribed to Crikey to get an alternative news source with some independent views. I do not believe that this is the case as I believe that I could pick up the same info from Fairfax, Murdoch or Crikey, and there really is bugger all difference between any of you. This is the sort of stunt your journos would crucify other media outlets for. I do remember the many articles from Crikey talking about rubbish journalism from ACA or Today Tonight. Why don’t you get back to the way you were and stop trying to match the Tabloids.

Bernie Masters writes: Your fascination with David Hicks is now verging on paranoid. It’s certainly boring for a someone like me who’s not a Hicks sympathiser. Please give us some real news.

Elysse Morgan writes: Your special edition brought me to tears, and I am not an emotional person. It really brought home what an absolute debacle this whole thing has been. It’s just so sad that one man can be used as a political pawn to such a devastating effect.

Jack Burton writes: What was the purpose of this Email. I know I’m elderly but it meant nothing to me. It seems to have a lot left out.

Graeme Richardson writes: Hmm. Interesting what you find out when you read between the lines.

Susie Constable writes: Please don’t contribute to the spam problem with this time wasting insult to our intelligence. This is very childish nonsense.