Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
from the ah,-whatever-ahppened-to-that-first-amendment dept
While the Feds are still trying to figure out if they can take legal action against Wikileaks and Julian Assange, in the short term it appears that the government is resorting to more traditional censorship methods: pressuring companies to silence Wikileaks. Wikileaks had just started using Amazon's S3 storage, after trying to deal with a constant denial of service attack that started this past weekend, but Amazon has now apparently dumped Wikileaks after getting pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who flat out called for censoring Wikileaks and then applauded Amazon for following through:"(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," he said in a statement. "I call on any other company or organization that is hosting WikiLeaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them."Anyone have a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that they can send to Lieberman? Or is that not allowed these days? I'll repeat my earlier comments: Look at who's complaining the most about Wikileaks and you realize that it's the people who benefit from not being held accountable for their actions.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, joe lieberman, wikileaks
Companies: amazon, wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Two words:
Maybe that's one and a half words, since .org isn't quite a word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two words:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two words:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two words:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two words:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Censorship" of Wikileaks???
I think it is way improper to describe government efforts to protect sensitive and private communications as "censorship."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
Best we nip this shit in the bud, if you're one of the people who your government allegedly represents, then you should know what your government is doing.
Or, to put it another way:
[Citizen to Government] "Hey, you fucking work for me, not the other way around!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
Are you or are you not a witch?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
But I got better.... ;)
I'm sorry. Cannot resist Pythonesque references..
Well, do carry on..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
Same goes for Wikileaks. You leak classified information? You get in trouble. But once the information is out there, there's no logical or moral reason to go after the free press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
But this doesn't make sense.
Here's a sensitive analogy: let's say a movie was leaked long before it was due in theaters, and this happens occasionally. Now, in all fairness, let's say this movie was obtained via illegal means, and posted as a torrent for all to access.
Per your argument, is the original copy the only infringing (and illegal) copy? I would suspect not. Therefore, it makes sense for whoever might want their data/documents back to attack or as some here would call it "censor" any server or party that might be harboring the document. This is of course under the assumption that whatever was obtained and broadcast was in fact illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
Could I steal a Picasso, pass it off to someone, and then claim the owner no longer has rights to it since it's now public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
If you ain't going to charge the publishers of the Pentagon Papers, you can't charge Wikileaks. They're doing essentially the same thing. The only difference is scale....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
I suspect they are simply charging him with the crime that would procure the longest sentencing.
If you ain't going to charge the publishers of the Pentagon Papers
Um, they did. It went to the Supreme Court...Moreover, Ellsburg and his accomplice were charged with the Espionage Act of 1917. However it was declared a mistrial given some illegal evidence gathering by the government's prosecution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
Okay, I'm going to assume that I wasn't clear when I said the PUBLISHERS of the Pentagon Papers. Wikileaks is the publisher, the person who actually leaked the documents is the leaker. In the Pentagon Papers case, Ellsburg is the LEAKER, and the publisher was first the NY Times, and then the Washington Post. THEY WERE NOT CHARGED. Nixon tried to get an injunction barring publication, but the Supreme Court said the case didn't warrant prior restraint....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States
Call it an injunction, or call it the minor step before being charged with the Espionage Act, either way the gov't tried to stop what was happening. Your previous comment seemed to offer the notion that nothing was ever lodged against the folks behind the PP (publisher or leaker). However, this is not true, both were attacked for generally the same reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
Ummm... No, his previous comment did not offer that notion.
It may have "seemed" (to you) to offer that notion, but your inability to parse prose should be no replacement for what he actually said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
Plus, read my response below to the exact same asinine argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
Not a good analogy at all. Nobody is suggesting that stealing something and passing it through another party means passing it to the public domain.
Anything produced by the US Government (until recently, when they started giving it to contractors,) is by its very nature, public domain. Your tax dollars paid for its creation, so you should have every benefit of its use.
Nobody, Government or otherwise, can claim copyright on works produced by the US Government. However, if the US Government hires a third-party to produce the work, then the jury is still out on whether the work is public domain or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
So, when do I get to hop in a Stealth Bomber for a quick jaunt?. After all, I apparently own 1/300,000,000th of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
Anyway, if we're being literally, then technically you'd only be allowed to fly 1/300,000,000th of it as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
info is infinite(almost but that tiny bit can be payed by ad`s) so owning a small piece of infinite is at lest worth one read
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
When the U.S. Government specifically says that Stealth Bombers are not property. They haven't yet, but they have done that for government documents:
Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government
- 17 USC P.105
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
Congratulations you just proved my point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
Anything that came from the US federal Government is (as far as copyright is concerned) in the public domain.
Even for those things that weren't produced by the US government one or all of the following are likely to apply.
1. The work - not being a creative work - is not covered by copyright.
2. The information in question could be re-expressed totally avoiding copyright - and would still do as much damage
3. Wherever 2) wouldn't work, quotation (with attribution) of what was said or written - as a means of making that information public would constitute fair use.
.
Copyright is therefore irrelevent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
the question is, since when should the people not be informed, regardless of whether the intent is to be covert or public?
since when did our first amendment rights get trumped by security? Last I checked, that doesn't exist anywhere in the constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
There is NOTHING different about today. Those rules came out of situations exactly like today and because of the "bogeyman" of terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
Wikileaks releases things that are in the public's interest to know and are therefore entitled to the same protections that other journalists who publish leaked information get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
A further one: it's not the responsibility of journalists -- or anyone else for that matter -- to keep secrets because others wish they would. What's not being asked here (and of course it's not being asked because it would embarrass the wrong people) is why the hell the US set up this system so poorly that it was trivial for someone to stroll off with a bazillion dispatches. And as a followup question, also not being asked, I could add "what possible reason do we have to believe that Wikileaks is the only entity with this data?"
Surely nobody is so pathetically naive as to think that a data system this amazingly weak has only been compromised once. I think it's far more likely that a much, MUCH larger corpus of documents has long since been in the hands of multiple governments -- who are no doubt privately amused that DC is wetting its pants over this trivial incident while much larger leaks go unremarked.
So in one sense, I look at it this way: if these dispatches are being read in Kabul and Moscow and Dublin and Havana and Minsk, then why not here? Hey, unlike all of those folks, I'm a US citizen: I paid for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
I believe that the leaked documents usually came from dissenters within the government, the same place most leaked documents come from. In other words, from people who actually had clearance to view them in the first place.
I think it's far more likely that a much, MUCH larger corpus of documents has long since been in the hands of multiple governments
That's very likely true. But the point of keeping these things secret has nothing to do with hiding information from, say, North Korea. It's all about hiding it from the press and public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
If your employees were using your money to play in your back, you'd be very happy to know about it and you'd take proper actions.
The government is doing exactly this. They take your money and play in your back. You are the employer of the government so stop acting like an obeying slave and stand up and take your responsibilities for once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
There's no one here to "feel" anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
The more the US is struggling against the release of these files the more attention they get.
By taking Wikipedia offline, like Joe "I hate freedom" Lieberman just demanded, he just used the US Constitution as toilet paper. I don't think the Founding Fathers had that use in mind when they wrote the damn thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
Perhaps the douche you see is you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
And the politicians who are defaming a website that doesn't even do anything illegal according to US law aren't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
Don't be ridiculous. We have a right to know. This is OUR country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
Annoyed? Maybe irritated, depending on who did it I might have grounds to sue. (You know what that is right? a CIVIL proceeding.) Of course there are wiretap laws for that aren't there? Lose the straw man argument please.
So what, I think it is improper to describe government communications as sensitive and private. Next?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No secrets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No secrets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No secrets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No secrets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No secrets
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101121/21414311956/president-obama-after-traveling-with-naked -scanner-ceo-defends-naked-scans.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No secrets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No secrets
private industry = what I can or can not produce or buy
notice the can / may difference.
ronald = logic fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No secrets
At the end of the day, governments are organisations of which we are shareholders by default, and it's our responsibility to keep them sane and moral. Unlike private companies, countries are based on ideals which governments need to respect and preserve. If they lose sight of those ideals, and we find out, we as the people of the country need to do something about it. If governments keep secrets too many secrets from their people, their people become their soldiers rather than their shareholders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No secrets
I don't think any sane person would argue that EVERYTHING the government does should be immediately visible to everyone. After all, military operations wouldn't be very successful if you published them in advance.
However, why should a military operation be kept secret a month, or a year, or a decade after it happened? And certainly the vast majority of what was leaked is not nearly as "dangerous" to the government as giving away the formula for Coke would be to Coca-Cola. What was leaked is more like the private e-mails of the CEO of Coca-Cola, which I bet most investors believe the should have the right to, considering that they are "co-owners" of the company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No secrets
Government only needs secrecy for VERY short periods in order to keep ONGOING operations from being exposed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No secrets
Thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No secrets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No secrets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No secrets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No secrets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No secrets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No secrets
Government only needs secrecy for VERY short periods in order to keep ONGOING operations from being exposed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Basically, conservative vs. liberal. Contrary to popular belief, those two groups are about equal in the US today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I also disagree that socialism does not mean more government power. The more services or entitlements the government is responsible for providing, the more power they have, automatically. That is, until they go bankrupt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I also disagree that socialism does not mean more government power. The more services or entitlements the government is responsible for providing, the more power they have, automatically.
That's a good point, but I think it's smearing the issue to say they're the same thing. Certainly you can have a totalitarian government that's not socialistic at all, so it's just useful to keep the distinction in mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think we are looking at two different definitions of Libertarianism. Libertarian is not the equal or opposite of conservatism. It lies nowhere in the liberal/conservative scale. Libertarianism is the opposite of authoritarianism, and you can be liberal or conservative within Libertarianism.
A republic is the ideal form of government, as a democracy allows the majority to abuse the minority. Current Libertarian philosophy espouses a return to a proper republic, and I don't see how the two are separable. You can't have a functional republic without Libertarian philosophies. A republic, by definition, assigns higher power to the state or local levels, who then have representatives at the federal level. The federal government is supposed to serve the states, who in turn serve the people.
You simply cannot have a true republic that is authoritarian because the moment you concentrate power at the federal level, it ceases to be a real republic. A powerful federal government that can ignore state representatives (as we have now in our dramatically overpowered executive branch) means that the republic is broken. A government in which laws restrict liberty to the point that individuals and local governments are effectively powerless (which is where we're headed if we're no already there) is also no longer a republic. Like the US, a country can call their government a republic. But if local representation is just for show, they are lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What if there were a country small enough not to need to function as a republic because a single national government is small enough to serve everyone effectively. If it's a representative democracy, and they elect representatives who favor socialism, are you saying that would then make it not a democracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the other hand, the people can certainly create a voluntary socialist system within a free republic. In that case, the system is far more likely to succeed, as it would contain those people who most passionately want to work for it's success. A voluntary socialist system can exist within a republic. A socialist "state" cannot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
news flash: the smaller the nation, the less screwed up the government and the easier it is to fix (for given values and scales of all terms.)
of the USA's problems, the one that makes it Hard to Fix is the fact that it's most of a bloody continent.
the EU is nicely headed the same way.
for the village, democracy and Communism (for want of a better word). for the city region, republicanism and protectionism. for the nation-state, monarchy and capitalism. for the empire (and make no mistake, the USA is in this category) only two systems work: facsim(for what of a better word) or feudalism. anything large enough will devolve into one or the other. the USA is very much the former. the economic element here is basically the wwhole 'if it moves, tax it, if it keeps moving, regulate it, and if it stops moving, subsidize it' thing... with the element of 'but only if the appropriate bribes are submitted'
a note here: Representative democracy is no democracy at all. It is simply the elite having found an alternative to assassinating each other to decide who gets to run things for the moment, with the added bonus of keeping the people happy by making them Think they control some part of the system.
Russia is also an empire. the British empire at it's peak went the feudal rout (note that the commonwealth monarchies still have governors as a result of this).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
of the USA's problems, the one that makes it Hard to Fix is the fact that it's most of a bloody continent. "
Precisely, which is why the Constitution gives much more power to states than to the federal government. Unfortunately, that has been completely reversed, and then some.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Welp, congratulations - They have you right where they want you, Dumbass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
non-americans would probably agree if u left out the plutocratic part, and most americans would hate america more and more each day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
or at least, that's my understanding.
pretty accurate description of the USA if it's an accurate definition of the word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikileaks Doc
https://www.demonoid.com/files/download/2466654/25902744
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you answer anything other than "Never" to either question, you are just a troll. Including article's author.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's very clear that Amazon was either coerced or bluntly THREATENED into dropping Wikileaks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"(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," he said in a statement. "I call on any other company or organization that is hosting WikiLeaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them."
Read that quote and tell me where he orders anyone to do anything? And tell me where they were threatened? Because its not clear to me nor many people on here. And if anyone was going to "order" someone do you think it would be Joe Lieberman? Seriously? He's as imposing as my 90 year old grandmother and she's in a coma.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's quite clear that if Amazon sides with Wikileaks, they'll regret it down the line when the government starts piling on extra taxes and signing contracts with rival companies. It's not like Amazon or any other company or organization has any choice on this matter..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, I don't know. Maybe since the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not free speech. Free press. Why are government documents exempt from the free press?
He's in an EU nation, and the EU nations have press freedoms very similar to that in the US. And while we're pointing out that he's outside US jurisdiction, are you at the same time suggesting he should be prosecuted by the US for something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
it would make discussion of actual issues reguarding American politics a Lot easier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Instead of standing up for anyone's rights, they took a runner. And you call that patriotic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Basically, everything should be DE-classified after, at most, 3 months to a year.
Maybe with some NAMES marked out, but nothing else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So goes the rhetoric, anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You didn't even address the point I made. Keep living in your deluded world.
I think the whole situation is hilarious. Good on Assange.
These bureaucrats are tactless and vile. These "public servants" deserve the humility WikiLeaks has called on them. Horrible, horrible, violent, disgusting people - and you'd support them. Your nationalism is blinding your logic here, and if you aren't mentally retarded you know it, but will probably never acknowledge it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As all of you anti-Wikileaks trolls (yes, YOU are the trolls) come out of the woodwork, two questions come to mind:
1. Where were you guys for the last 4 years? Wikileaks is not new. Just seems like you're rallying now because your rulers in the media and government are saying harsh things about them.
2. Why do you worship power? Ah, must be just like your name says: A coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When did it not?
Since when was Julian Assange a US citizen guaranteed such a right?
First, there's the philosophical argument that free speech is a right that all humankind shares (a thought shared by our very Declaration of Independence, mind you). Besides, would you suddenly be okay with this if it was a US citizen leaking the same info? I suspect not, which makes the question of Assange's citizenship nothing more than a distraction on your part.
Second, Amazon is a US company being pressured by the US government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Constitution and non-citizens
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The truth revealed...
Lieberman's actual name L'ieber Man'Joe, and he is a Bothan, and Wikileaks is a whole mountain-sized storehouse filled with stuff he doesn't want revealed. At some point, Lieberman destroyed Caamas, and now he's trying to hide it....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship
Bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Censorship
Sometimes (in my darker moments) I wonder if the quality of education in American public schools is intentionally being allowed to stagnate so that the American populace can be better manipulated ... After all, how can someone defend their rights or the rights of others if they don't understand what those rights are?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Censorship
personally, given that this issue is present in places outside the USA, I'd say an unfortunate mix of the two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Censorship
then you have your corporations, who are Schroedinger's persons... or something. both and neither until you open the box... only the box keeps flickering between one and the other anyway...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looks like the Pirate Bay might be useful for something other than camrips of movies after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hope so cause TPB isn't a very good source for anything more than unwanted popups these days. They have caved to the spam industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just disappointing that Amazon would cave. That's all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If he was a citizen of the US, it wouldn't be terrorism? Terrorism depends on your country of origin and not the action? Timmy McVeigh can rest easy in his grave, I guess.
Also, what? Terrorism? Listen kid, terrorism doesn't mean "something the US government really hates", despite what the word has been twisted into by the past couple presidencies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Get back to work grandma.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
so in every way this is terrorism as the people with stuff to hide are very afraid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wikileaks merely releases documents. Whether such an act is legal or moral I won't argue with you, but what I am saying is that Wikileaks is NOT a terrorist organisation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i'll wait for your answer.
who are wikileaks terrorizing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Terrorists use *terror* to force people to do what they want. He's not doing anything like that, simply exposing information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And so do the whistleblowers on sites like Wikileaks and Cryptome. REGARDLESS where they are from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill of Rights apply to everyone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hate to play Devil's Advocate
Secondly, I recall you yourself stating on many occassions censorship only occurs when its the government doing it. If Amazon decide not to host Wikileaks, that's their business, it is not censorship and not a violation of the First Admendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hate to play Devil's Advocate
True enough, but I can imagine how noncompliance with a government "request" might be seen as an admission by Amazon that they were hosting "infringing content".
"Nice domain you got there . . . be a shame if anything were to happen to it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hate to play Devil's Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hate to play Devil's Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hate to play Devil's Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hate to play Devil's Advocate
So, according to you, that doesn't count as censorship, right? That's perfectly okay and nobody's doing anything wrong at all apparently?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate to play Devil's Advocate
on the other hand, it is not perfectly ok, and Far from lacking in wrong doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hate to play Devil's Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hate to play Devil's Advocate
Secondly, I recall you yourself stating on many occassions censorship only occurs when its the government doing it. If Amazon decide not to host Wikileaks, that's their business, it is not censorship and not a violation of the First Admendment.
A sternly worded request from a powerful Senator is not an order, but close enough. Putting political pressure on an organization to silence speech is censorship in my book. Playing games and saying since it was just a request and not an "order" is playing games with reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hate to play Devil's Advocate
And trying to read too much into a particular situation is trying to fit a story within the framework of a particular agenda. Perhaps you should stop crying "wolf."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hate to play Devil's Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hate to play Devil's Advocate
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/how_lieberman_got_amazon_to_drop_wikileaks .php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate to play Devil's Advocate
If such an email were leaked, grand, then it would be proof of a US Senator co-ercing a business into censorship. However, all the evidence I have seen is simply a Senator grand-standing and of a company making a business decision.
And for what it's worth, I support Wikileaks and their whistleblowing operation. I however do not believe that it is censorship for one US company to decide not to host the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hate to play Devil's Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more links
or just search Google, same thing. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: more links
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A platform
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A platform
The first is a business decision, the second is the chilling effect of our government on free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A platform
The problem lies in Senator Lieberman acting in his official capacity as a U.S. senator to discourage Amazon from carrying WikiLeaks. From my understanding of the situation, Senator Lieberman did not legally force Amazon to drop WikiLeaks, and if Amazon were willing to push back they would have had at least one legal leg upon which to stand. Senator Lieberman did, however, apply pressure using the authority of his office, which I would construe as an attempt at censorship, though not the worst possible thing he could have done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A platform
Amazon can, in fact, do as they please with their business, but as a customer, I can also choose to stop shopping there as a result. There are a lot of choices available, just saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A platform
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A platform
You, my good sir, are less than capable. Amazon, far and away, has average prices and hideous shipping fees.
There now, having typed that, I'm not getting how you equate not believing in freedom of the press etc with choosing not to shop at Amazon because one may disagree with their action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A platform
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would Amazon have been declared to be "supporting terrorists" and have their domains siezed? I would've loved to have seen the uproar from that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fucktard amazon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fucktard amazon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: fucktard amazon
Not sure how it relates to his comment though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: fucktard amazon
Back when the world was more....enlightened...when you were caught having sex with somebody whom you weren't married to; they took you into the square, naked, put you in stocks, and hung a sign over your head. That sign said "F.U.C.K.," simply because ink was at a premium back then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: fucktard amazon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: fucktard amazon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: fucktard amazon
Didn't know about the Van Halen connection though :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DoS was self imposed
Im sure that would have resulted in an effective, self imposed DoS attack..
the same end result, but one is innocent and one is deliberate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DoS was self imposed
One can analyze traffic patterns to determine that traffic from nighttime timezones is, despite scattered, 5000% above normal. Probably an attack. One can see that 30% of their requests are specifically malformed to exploit a minor bug in their webserver that consumes an inordinate amount of computing resources. Not a coincidence. They can analyze the IPs that traffic is coming from and realize that many of the blocks are leased to firms that sell bandwidth and computing time (like CDNs), and thus are not unlikely to have any actual humans driving the traffic.
I'm actually looking forward to when they post more about this DoS after they thoroughly analyze it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"thats alright, you should hear what we say about you"
You are aware that it is mainly the NYtimes behind Wiki's promotion, most others are reporting on that fact. And are backing away from risking national security. and international security.
Also, the people involved, the people who were talked about, state that, that is part of the normal everyday diplomatic process. And that it is a two way street.
And very very few if any took any exception to the comments.
Its not going to start a new world war, but it is going to cost the US heaps of money relocating and re-establishing diplomats over the world..
Guess who pay for that ?? yes, you do..
Thats democracy for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "thats alright, you should hear what we say about you"
Where are on earth did you hear this? Do you mean Wikipedia maybe? Wikileaks is completely independent from that. In fact, it's pretty much completely independent from everything, except maybe Icland who are heavy supporters of the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "thats alright, you should hear what we say about you"
Second, you're a moron if you think this isn't a form of censorship.
Thirdly, I wouldn't be surprised at all to find that then DHS has used Wikileaks before in aiding an investigation. Way to shoot yourself in the foot, dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "thats alright, you should hear what we say about you"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fucktard amazon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amazon turning a blind eye to someone who's crossed a line between whistle blowing and putting someone in harm's way is irresponsible in my opinion.
I don't agree with the government's response of deflection, because there was some whistleblowing that needed to happen, but when lives are at steak it's time to plug up the hole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you can find me one cable on Wikileaks where the name of a CIA operative is not redacted, I will be 100% on your side. All you need to do is find one. Go ahead, go try. It shouldn't be that hard, right? Just one. That's all. I couldn't make this easier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Doesn't really matter, wikileaks could put it on a P2P site and it will get around as long as the media is making a big deal about it, good or bad. all that is lost is business for amazon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do we deserve to know? Maybe, that is a different question, but I'm quite certain the whole world doesn't need to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The government want the right to spy on their own citizens to be able to gather "important" intel but the public don't need to know anything that goes on inside?
Are you saying you will follow anything your government says you have to do blindly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How you can have such a naive trust in a government is beyond me. A cursory study of the history of any government, over any period of time, will show that any government is capable of shocking amounts of evil.
What would constitute a secret you think should be justly kept, and what would constitute a secret that should be revealed?
If you think governments should be able to keep all their secrets, then what other mechanism do you think will ensure that the governed can continue to keep their rights? Can you think of any?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To quote the Princess Bride, "You are trying to take what I have rightfully stolen"
The information belongs to the US Government, so they are censoring themselves? No one is trying to keep Assange's opinion quiet, THAT would be censorship.
How immature...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To quote the Princess Bride, "You are trying to take what I have rightfully stolen"
The information belongs to the US Government, so they are censoring themselves? No one is trying to keep Assange's opinion quiet, THAT would be censorship.
To quote the Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You lose Amazon!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You lose Amazon!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You lose Amazon!
What an insightful comment. Thank you for your contribution to the community. In the future you may want to take a moment to proof read your comments so your poor grammer and spelling doesn't make you look foolish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a narcissistic point of view...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Huh. I wonder what employers would say about an "information leak" if the content was non-work related text messages being sent on a company phone by an employee? Or info about an employee using the company car to pick up hookers? Or some supervisor deliberately mismanaging her department for her own personal benefit? I wonder if, instead of firing those employees, the employer would go, "wow I can't believe this was leaked, we should put that whistleblower in jail for this! My employees' activities on company time are private, regardless of what they do, even if it loses me money!"
Sounds like an incompetent employer to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Our Founding Fathers would be ROLLING OVER IN THEIR GRAVES with idiots like you who mistake public information (done on the government dime), though classified, for private information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's say someone obtained evidence of a nation's soldiers indiscriminately killing dozens of innocent civilians and nearby reporters, gunning them down without mercy, and then doing the same for the civilians who tried to rescue the wounded. Information about the incident had been requested by the media, and the military was legally obligated to provide it, but had stonewalled the matter indefinitely. The only knowledge obtained was through the leak.
Would you use your same excuse that it is "stolen private information" to justify keeping that information secret? Do you think that preventing dissemination of this information would not be censorship?
What if a known recording system in the office of the president of a nation were to record conversations by that president that revealed presidential authorization of criminal activity against his political opponents? What if this information were so heinous that it would have forced this president to resign or face certain impeachment?
Is keeping that secret the right thing to do because it is "stolen private information"? Can you explain how it is narcissistic to want that information known?
I guess it wasn't so hypothetical after all. Sorry...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US & Aust running scared!
The US should look at their own security and where access to such a vast array of so-called "Secret" documents can easily be given to wikileaks or anyone else in the first place.
I commend wikileaks for at least trying to open the worlds eyes to what is REALLY going on!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Censorship"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Censorship"
Along these same lines I've thought it odd that most of what gets headlines on Wikileaks is when something embarasses the US government. How come I never hear of them leaking China or Russian secrets? Or even Panamanian or Peruvian secrets? Don't know if it's because their secrets aren't leaked, or the media just doesn't report on it. I guess someday I should actually read Wikileaks. On someone else's computer though so I don't get put on a watchlist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Censorship"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cloud Computing at its finest
Good luck selling that service to anyone in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
boycott amazon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It will spread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another proof..
Public reputation. Quite many Hollywood celebrities were immediately against the Iraq war. Madonna for example. Yet in a few weeks almost all got silenced somehow. How? You think you will remain popular when branded as terrorist/communist/rapist? People controlling media channels are able to launch an effective campaign against individuals.
Money. Amazon today. Yes you're free to run your business but.. the Govt may brand you as harboring enemy of the state, do you dare to lose xx% of your "patriotic" customers before XMas?
Court-jail: Rape charges against Assange..
Tragic accident: Death of David Kelly, UN weapons of mass destruction inspector
Free exchange of information (e.g. Internet) is the only hope for mankind to built just(ier) societies IMO..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why only leaks about US?
BTW, why t** f**k someone defends my freedom in Afghanistan/Iraq??? I live here. I walk in my Walmart and see no Afghans/Iraqis trying to keep me in captivity. Anyone cares to explain with sense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To bad
Granted, the *best* way around this is to just run a government or organization that is open, honest, and stands by its principles. But that of course involves no fun tech gadgets, nor does it involve realistic expectations ;p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alleged Censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Alleged Censorship
The US government stepping in and pressuring an American company not to publish certain content?
Uh, yeah, that's censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Alleged Censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Alleged Censorship
polls are Not evidence. they cannot be used as evidence for Anything, because in that capacity they are pure spin.
they are useful information gathering tools for the people who conduct them if their goal is to gather actual information and they are careful about their questions and sample selection process, mind you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Alleged Censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As well as a dramatic change in how the US treats other nations, dropping the bully tactics and honestly working with other countries for the common good. There's a reason the US has always been such a target for extremists (well, more than one), and part of it lies in how it's treated other countries. That has to change if the US is ever going to truly move forward.
But I suppose it's unlikely to happen in reality, at least not without another armed revolution or two here in the States to forcibly strip the elite of their power. Because I think that's the only way they ever will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/us-pressured-germany-not-prosecute-cia-officers-torture -and-rendition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Closed my amazon account
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll just leave this here...
The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailors, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden man can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens.
Others - as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and officeholders - serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the Devil, without intending it, as God.
A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it.
-Henry David Thoreau
Civil Disobedience
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Enterprise
Sometimes this country makes me really sad when we don't live up to our potential
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More than one issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikileaks
Some of you on here want to have it both ways. You want the US Bill of Rights to apply to the international internet, but you don't want the US or any other government reaching across borders after certain people are caught with their pants down (Assange and Polanski come to mind).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope anon steps up and has a go at amazon now. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Study the constitution.
As per the first amendment.
Then you might want to consider the US considers itself constitutionly at WAR.
Then look up what sedition means, and treason.
that is without even looking at the patriot act, or the military secrets act.
Then find out what happens to someone in the military, in a state of war, who provides information to its enemies !
and if you think the US cannot play the same game as Assange, you wuold be mistaken.
I wonder if wikileaks would post some leaked information about Julian Asange ?
Im sure it would not, Julian would censor it, he would make a determination on your behalf regarding if he felt that information was valuable for you (or more importantly to him).
He would not last 5 minutes in Russia, where they take a dim view of media critical of the government, you can be beaten to death, your fingers cut off, as a warning not to write. And you can rest assured that the government will never find out who did it.. (officially)..
its also not constructive whistleblowing at all, its all just sensational stuff, diplomatic communications have to be frank and honest. They also have to be private.
But wikileaks is getting more and more on the nose to more and more people.. and governments..
He has no first amendment free speech rights, he's not in the US, he's not from the US, therefore he is a foreign agent, or combatant.. actively working to subvert the US Government.. and US economy, and international relations.
and for what ? what is the payoff ? Que Bono
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Study the constitution.
Just wow.
Thanks for providing the bizarro world/faux news/wacky-fun opinion.
I hardly know where to start! its exciting!
Lets see..
Then you might want to consider the US considers itself constitutionly at WAR.
false.
Then look up what sedition means, and treason.
that is without even looking at the patriot act, or the military secrets act.
Then find out what happens to someone in the military, in a state of war, who provides information to its enemies !
Hysterics and bad understanding of the law aside, Mr Assange is not a member of the military, much less one that is at war. He has never leaked data or information.
There may be legal recourse, actions to be taken against the actual personel responsible for these actions, but as the Publisher of this information he is protected, or should be under the law.
and then you go of into some sort of rant about people getting fingers cut off in russia.. which is not really relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exposing some government gossip - death penalty.
Exposing a CIA agent - free pass, coke and popcorn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship or protection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Censorship or protection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Censorship or protection
Have you even read the contents of the cables? Do you have even the smallest notion of what is in them? If you did, I have no idea how you could make the claim that the information is going to "get people killed".
Look, go read them. Or at LEAST go read 10 good summaries of the highlights. Then come back with some specific examples of information that you think will get people "killed". Until then your rhetoric is baseless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Censorship or protection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cablegate#Contents
Here's a representative snippet:
A new rail link between Pakistan and Iran would be delayed for the time being, owing to poor conditions, low freight-carrying capacity and unrest from Baloch insurgents in the Balochistan region of both countries.[108] Likewise, a natural gas pipeline agreement was also not expected to be fruitful because "the Pakistanis don't have the money to pay for either the pipeline, or the gas".[108]
I challenge you to find even one credible instance of any of this information presenting a clear and direct danger to anyone's life. If you can't find it, you should realize your position is purely reactionary, and based on ignorance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikileaks, Constitution, 1st Amendment
I totally agree with you. The people that are elected have to be accountable for their actions. We, the people, need to know what they are doing. The First Amendment of our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. My American History teacher gave each student a booklet entitled The Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of California published by THE SENATE 1993-94, California State Senate. It says under Amendment 1, [Section 1] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Proposed September 25, 1789; ratified December 15, 1791.
This amendment is in our Bill of Rights. These are our rights guaranteed to us. I stand in support of these rights. Charlotte Everett
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikileaks Access
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not maybe, definatly, as in has put them in danger. Not "if it angers a country we could goto war", thats not valid reasoning, thats a failure on your diplomats to actually do their job.
Until then, try something new, get a real argument.
And as for charging him, ive seen the trumped up charges that were released today, arrest him, ill step up, many of us will, we will host everywhere, ill put my name to it.
Scare tactics wont bow us, you cannot stop us.
So grow up, grow a pair of balls, whatever it takes but learn to live with your own system. Dont blame us for showing it for what it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lieberman and wikileaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]