Wikileaks - your thoughts - no politics

[Westernskies]

The wikens are showing their true colors; this isn't about freedom of the press, it's about promoting civil unrest and economic anarchy.

Visa becomes next target for WikiLeaks backers - Yahoo! Finance

I say bag 'em and tag 'em. YMMV.

[kcowan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westernskies The wikens are showing their true colors; this isn't about freedom of the press, it's about promoting civil unrest and economic anarchy. Visa becomes next target for WikiLeaks backers - Yahoo! Finance I say bag 'em and tag 'em. YMMV.

The counter attacks certainly seemed to indicate that the Wikileaks backers are anarchists.

[eridanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westernskies The wikens are showing their true colors; this isn't about freedom of the press, it's about promoting civil unrest and economic anarchy. Visa becomes next target for WikiLeaks backers - Yahoo! Finance I say bag 'em and tag 'em. YMMV.

The anti-wikens are showing their true colors. This isn't about Freedom of Press; it's about promoting fascism and suspending the Bill of Rights.

WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US political pressure | Media | The Guardian

I say they should move to somewhere more amenable to their views such as, say, Myanmar. YMMV.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eridanus The anti-wikens are showing their true colors. This isn't about Freedom of Press; it's about promoting fascism and suspending the Bill of Rights. WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US political pressure | Media | The Guardian I say they should move to somewhere more amenable to their views such as, say, Myanmar. YMMV.

Isn't Amazon expressing their right to Free Speech? They don't have the right to say what does and does not go on their site? Could I put up political posters on your front lawn, and then claim you are violating my "Free Speech" if you take them down?

The wikileaks guy can put his stuff up on his own site until it is found to be illegal (like screaming "FIRE" in a theater).

-ERD50

[eridanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Isn't Amazon expressing their right to Free Speech? They don't have the right to say what does and does not go on their site? Could I put up political posters on your front lawn, and then claim you are violating my "Free Speech" if you take them down? The wikileaks guy can put his stuff up on his own site until it is found to be illegal (like screaming "FIRE" in a theater). -ERD50

Seriously?

Perhaps you missed the part where a sitting Senator, who also happens to chair the Homeland Security committee, made a call to Amazon? I'm sure he was only calling as a concerned citizen and didn't even tell Amazon who he was ("Hello, this is Senator Joe Lieb...er, I'm a concerned citizen calling about your hosting of Wikileaks.")

Maybe you didn't hear that the government, which IS constricted by the Bill of Rights, is now censoring Wikileaks at the Library of Congress?

Library of Congress Blocks WikiLeaks Site Access

To answer your question, of course Amazon can do what they want. It's when the government gets involved that it becomes a Constitutional problem.

Believing that the government isn't involved is an act of willing blindness.

[clifp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eridanus Seriously? Perhaps you missed the part where a sitting Senator, who also happens to chair the Homeland Security committee, made a call to Amazon? I'm sure he was only calling as a concerned citizen and didn't even tell Amazon who he was ("Hello, this is Senator Joe Lieb...er, I'm a concerned citizen calling about your hosting of Wikileaks.") Maybe you didn't hear that the government, which IS constricted by the Bill of Rights, is now censoring Wikileaks at the Library of Congress? Library of Congress Blocks WikiLeaks Site Access To answer your question, of course Amazon can do what they want. It's when the government gets involved that it becomes a Constitutional problem. Believing that the government isn't involved is an act of willing blindness.

I thought the 1st Amendment prohibit Congress from passing laws infringing on free of speech and press. I wasn't aware that it prevented Senators either a private citizen or chairman of committee from expressing their views and preferences. Does Lieberman give up his 1st amendment rights because he is a Senator?


More importantly why shouldn't the government be involved in this? A fair number of people on both sides of the aisle believe that WikiLeaks is a threat to our national security. I'd argue that "the common defense" is one of the most important government functions.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eridanus Seriously? ... To answer your question, of course Amazon can do what they want. It's when the government gets involved that it becomes a Constitutional problem. Believing that the government isn't involved is an act of willing blindness.

I haven't read the details of the govt involvement in Amazon's decision, so not willing blindness but I will plead ignorance (and/or just laziness as so much journalism doesn't give me the data I need). It could definitely be a problem, depending on the details.

I was assuming Amazon did this freely, based on info they received from the govt, and that assumption could be wrong. If the govt alerted me to a potential problem that was under my control, and I decided to take action, that isn't censorship. That may or may not be the case here, I dunno.

-ERD50

[ERD50]

erdianus - OK, I got unlazy enough to read far enough to get this:

Quote:

The company announced it was cutting WikiLeaks off yesterday only 24 hours after being contacted by the staff of Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland security. .... Although there are echoes of the censorship row between Google and China earlier this year, constitutional lawyers insisted it was not a first amendment issue because Amazon is a private company, free to make its own decisions. .... Lieberman said: "[Amazon's] decision to cut off WikiLeaks now is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies WikiLeaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material. .... The department of homeland security confirmed Amazon's move, referring journalists to Lieberman's statement.

Seems reasonable to me. This stuff is stolen material. If Amazon was alerted that one of their merchants was peddling stolen material, I think they would shut them down. What's the problem?

-ERD50

[eridanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp I thought the 1st Amendment prohibit Congress from passing laws infringing on free of speech and press. I wasn't aware that it prevented Senators either a private citizen or chairman of committee from expressing their views and preferences. Does Lieberman give up his 1st amendment rights because he is a Senator? More importantly why shouldn't the government be involved in this? A fair number of people on both sides of the aisle believe that WikiLeaks is a threat to our national security. I'd argue that "the common defense" is one of the most important government functions.

It applies to the government and not solely to Congress. As for Senators calling private businesses, we'll never know if it was a violation of the Bill of Rights without a leak.

It could've been,
"This is Senator Lieberman's office and we think it violates laws."
Amazon: Oh, we didn't realize. We'll check on that.

Or it could've been,
"This is Senator Lieberman's office. We'd like you to take it down. Oh, by the way, the Senator is still undecided on the internet sales tax issue."
Amazon:...

Or it could've been,
"This is Senator Lieberman's office. Take it down or DOJ lawyers will be all over your offices within an hour."
Amazon: Wikileaks down! STAT!


Of course, we all know that Senators are upstanding politicians and would never use their positions of power illegally but aren't you a little bit concerned?

A simple threat to "national security" isn't a reason to censor Wikileaks. That was decided in NYT v. US (1971).

[eridanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Seems reasonable to me. This stuff is stolen material. If Amazon was alerted that one of their merchants was peddling stolen material, I think they would shut them down. What's the problem? -ERD50

First, the good Senator doesn't decide what can be published or not. That's for a court to decide.

Second, the Pentagon Papers were stolen too. We know how that ended.

I'm sure Amazon didn't want to face an expensive lawsuit brought by the feds. It was a wise business decision on their part. That's not what this is about though.


Edit: Obviously the cables were stolen originally. They're now in the hands of a media organization however.

[clifp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eridanus It applies to the government and not solely to Congress. As for Senators calling private businesses, we'll never know if it was a violation of the Bill of Rights without a leak. It could've been, "This is Senator Lieberman's office and we think it violates laws." Amazon: Oh, we didn't realize. We'll check on that. Or it could've been, "This is Senator Lieberman's office. We'd like you to take it down. Oh, by the way, the Senator is still undecided on the internet sales tax issue." Amazon:... Or it could've been, "This is Senator Lieberman's office. Take it down or DOJ lawyers will be all over your offices within an hour." Amazon: Wikileaks down! STAT! Of course, we all know that Senators are upstanding politicians and would never use their positions of power illegally but aren't you a little bit concerned? A simple threat to "national security" isn't a reason to censor Wikileaks. That was decided in NYT v. US (1971).

The last example maybe some type of abuse of power, but I am not sure what is wrong with first two examples. There isn't a law involved in any of the cases. Or are you claiming the Senator Lieberman doesn't have the constitutional right to express his opinions? My understanding that NYT vs US involved prior restraint against published material. I am sure there is some relevance between the Pentagon papers and the Wikileaks case, but there are many differences starting with the fact the Assange isn't a US citizen, he may or may not be journalist/member of the press. The courts may ultimately rule that government has overstepped it authority in how it deals with wikileaks, but if Wikileaks is in fact to national security, I rather the government fight the website now and pay for damage later. Than do nothing.

[Texas Proud]

From the news last night....

They are attacking Visa/Mastercard/Paypal because they cut off supporters from donating to Wikileaks...

Now, the reporter said they were supposed to cut off funding since the gvmt put Wikileaks on some terrorist list... (not sure if I heard it right, so don't hold me to this)....


I think it a bit much to put Wikileaks on a terrorist list since a bunch of the 'normal' media sites are reporting on what they find in the disclosures.... should the NYT be on the terror list

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud should the NYT be on the terror list

OK by me.

Ha

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eridanus Edit: Obviously the cables were stolen originally. They're now in the hands of a media organization however.

So that makes them unstolen? Wonder how that works at a pawnshop.

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eridanus The anti-wikens are showing their true colors. This isn't about Freedom of Press; it's about promoting fascism and suspending the Bill of Rights. WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US political pressure | Media | The Guardian I say they should move to somewhere more amenable to their views such as, say, Myanmar. YMMV.

My true colors are red, white and blue... Yours?

Bottom line is that classified documents were obtained illegally and posted online by a "twisted little freak" (Thanks Leonidas!) with an anti-US agenda. I'm glad that Amazon, Visa, and MC did the right thing by suspending payments for stolen materials.

How did Hope and Change morph into facism, I thought we were past all that...?

But, so you can step up and support this important cause, here's how you can put your money where your mouth is:
Philadelphia mobile payments firm steps up for WikiLeaks | ITworld

I'm fine here in the US, thanks. Our Government is doing it's job on this one, in my opinion. Maybe Mr. Assange can suggest somewhere more amenable to your views; I hear he may be needing some outside help soon...

[Surfdaddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 erdianus - OK, I got unlazy enough to read far enough to get this: Seems reasonable to me. This stuff is stolen material. If Amazon was alerted that one of their merchants was peddling stolen material, I think they would shut them down. What's the problem? -ERD50

I don't like the term "stolen". It was illegally COPIED. And not by Wikileaks. Courts have already ruled (a la Pentagon Papers) that news outlets can legally publish illegally obtained materials (assuming the news organization did not do the illegal copying). And to my knowledge Wikileaks has been charged with no crimes. Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surfdaddy I don't like the term "stolen". It was illegally COPIED. And not by Wikileaks. Courts have already ruled (a la Pentagon Papers) that news outlets can legally publish illegally obtained materials (assuming the news organization did not do the illegal copying). And to my knowledge Wikileaks has been charged with no crimes. Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

I'm not a lawyer, I don't know. But those are the words in the article that was pointed to, so I'm just commenting based on that. Illegally seized, illegally copied, stolen - is there a meaningful difference? There is a lot of speculating going on, and some seem to be giving the wikileaks guy the benefit of every doubt, while assuming the worst on all counts from other parties.

We will see. Or, for the conspiracy theorists, we never will.

-ERD50

[BTravlin]

According to this article, Wikileaks has kept it's donor list secret in the past except for the noted gaffe. Do they still keep their donor list secret? I've not been able to find out yet. With their apparent anti U.S. slant I'd like to know where their funding is coming from.

Wikileaks Forced to Leak Its Own Secret Info — Update | Threat Level | Wired.com

Could some of our enemies be supporting them?

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTravlin According to this article, Wikileaks has kept it's donor list secret in the past except for the noted gaffe. Do they still keep their donor list secret? I've not been able to find out yet. With their apparent anti U.S. slant I'd like to know where their funding is coming from. Wikileaks Forced to Leak Its Own Secret Info — Update | Threat Level | Wired.com Could some of our enemies be supporting them?

Good Point!

His donor list, detailing the names, addresses, email addresses, contribution amounts and account numbers used for contributions of all Wiki contributors should immediately be published online.

Anything less is facism and suspending the Bill of Rights...

[Westernskies]

Interesting commentary on the WikiLeaks fiasco.

WikiLeaks cyberbrawl is battle of amateurs - Yahoo! Finance