Federal court overturns Wikileaks censorship.

[Hayabusa Rider]

Text


The whole thing should never have happened. The first judge didn't even give Wikileaks a chance to respond before he acted.

One for the good guys! :thumbsup:

 

[ShotgunSteven]

A federal judge today struck down an injunction against Wikileaks, reversing his earlier ruling that effectively blocked access to the muckraking site through its U.S. domain name in a lawsuit brought by a Swiss bank.

He struck down his own ruling, or is my interpretation incorrect?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Wikileaks.org was ordered closed by a judge for publishing leaked account information from an ex-Swiss bank worker.

A federal judge who shut down the renegade Web site Wikileaks.org reversed the decision Friday and allowed the site to reopen in the United States.

In mid-February, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White issued an injunction against Wikileaks after the Zurich-based Bank Julius Baer accused the site of posting sensitive account information stolen by a disgruntled former employee.

White set off storms of protest among free-speech advocates and news media organizations when he ordered the disabling of the entire site rather than issuing a narrowly tailored order to remove the bank's documents.

On Friday, the judge dropped the injunction that took the site offline, citing First Amendment concerns and questions about legal jurisdiction.

At a court hearing in San Francisco, White said he had "serious questions" about whether legal measures sought by the bank "would be constitutionally appropriate" and whether they constituted prior restraint by the government. He also cited "possible violations of the First Amendment."

In addition, White said he questioned the "effectiveness" of blocking the site, an apparent reference to the fact that other Web sites quickly obtained and disseminated the information about the bank.

The judge recognized that "the genie is out of the bottle," said Matt Zimmerman, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, one of several organizations that filed briefs on the case. The Associated Press and the ACLU were also among them.

"The reality of the Internet makes it difficult for him to issue an order that will have any impact, given the fact that all the material is already out there," Zimmerman said.

The bank sued Wikileaks and the San Mateo company Dynadot, which provided the Web site's U.S. domain name after client information was posted.

Dynadot agreed to shut down the Web site in exchange for the bank removing it from the lawsuit.

The Wikileaks site claims to have posted 1.2 million leaked government and corporate documents that it says expose unethical behavior, including a 2003 operation manual for the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

It wasn't clear whether the site would resume its operations.

Hours after the judge ruled, Wikileaks.org was still not working

WikiLeaks, for those that don't know (and I was one of those people that didn't) is a site that publishes leaked documents/information that is of a "classified" nature and is detailing unethical procedures and/or practices.

 

[Jaskalas]

On Friday, the judge dropped the injunction that took the site offline, citing First Amendment concerns and questions about legal jurisdiction.

Took that long to read the first amendment, eh?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

On Friday, the judge dropped the injunction that took the site offline, citing First Amendment concerns and questions about legal jurisdiction.

Took that long to read the first amendment, eh?

To be fair, I think a lot of people have this problem with the Bill of Rights...it just sounds too simple. In a country with hundreds of pages of regulations covering the sale of corn, is it any surprise that people are always having trouble wrapping their brains around ideas so simple they are expressed in a few sentences?