p2pnet - rss feed: Judge reverses himself over Wikileaks
p2pnet news | Freedom:- A federal judge in San Francisco has reversed himself after ordering a whistle-blower site to be shut down.
US district judge Jeffrey White was roundly, and universally, criticised by news organisations and civil liberties groups when on February 15 he ordered Net registrar Dynadot to take down Wikileaks.org, and also blocked it from moving to another server.
Swiss banking company Julius Baer, and Julius Baer Bank & Trust Company, its Cayman Islands subsidiary, were deeply worried by "confidential information and documents" posted on Wikileaks site by an ex-employee.
Julius Baer, "now infamous for a) shutting down WikiLeaks.org, and b) offering a haven in the Cayman Islands for alleged tax evaders and money launderers," finally broke its silence yesterday, said InfoWorld, adding:
"The bank issued a press release that was a marvel of reality distortion.
"In four terse paragraphs Baer managed to deny any wrongdoing, assert its rights to victim status, portray itself as a defender of individual rights and freedom of speech, and say nothing about what it actually did do - (partially) take down a site built to protect human rights activists and corporate whistle blowers."
Now, "After a three-hour hearing Friday, White dissolved the injunction," says the San Francisco Chronicle, going on:
"He also rejected the bank’s request to extend a restraining order that required Wikileaks and the Internet registrar to remove the bank documents from the Web site. The restraining order expired Friday. Such decrees raise ’serious questions of prior restraint (on speech) and possible violations of the First Amendment,’ White said.
"He also said federal courts may lack jurisdiction over the case because the bank has failed to show that Wikileaks, or anyone responsible for its operations, is based in the United States."
Wikileaks never really went away with various mirrors and zips circulating the Net.
But now it’s officially back, with this as the lead-in page:
The action I am taking is no more than a radical measure to hasten the explosion of truth and justice. I have but one passion: to enlighten those who have been kept in the dark, in the name of humanity which has suffered so much and is entitled to happiness. My fiery protest is simply the cry of my very soul. Let them dare, then, to bring me before a court of law and let the enquiry take place in broad daylight!" - Emile Zola, J’accuse! (1898).
Says the New York Times:
"More than a dozen lawyers at the hearing represented organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and various media companies. A striking absence throughout the proceeding was of anyone claiming to represent Wikileaks.
"A lawyer appeared in court representing the owner of the domain name Wikileaks.org, John Shipton, an Australian living in Kenya. But the lawyer emphasized that he did not speak for the site, and no other lawyer claimed to speak for it.
"Lawyers and the judge had difficulty grappling with the nature of Wikileaks and questioned whether it could be treated like a corporation or other, more traditional legal entity that could be brought into court.
"Judge White did not go so far as to decide that the federal courts had no jurisdiction over the case at all, as one brief argued. He said he hoped that lawyers for the plaintiffs would address that question in later proceedings."
Also See:
deeply worried - Wikileaks case continues to unfold, February 29, 2008
InfoWorld - Julius Baer emerges from cave, February 29, 2008
San Francisco Chronicle - S.F. judge dissolves his Wikileaks injunction, March 1, 2008
New York Times - Judge Reverses His Order Disabling Web Site, March 1, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
March 1st, 2008 at 9:35 pm
WikileaksCan not be shut down and is not shut down.
http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks
March 2nd, 2008 at 4:06 am
Reader’s Write : You did read the above, right? The wikileaks.org domain name is reinstated - why bother with the IP?
March 2nd, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Actually it could have been shut down, but fortunately US business and law is fraught with morons who think they know a thing or two about tech and really only enough to get someone hurt. I was trying to come up with an analogy for what they did, but I couldn’t think of anything that wouldn’t make some pretty silly assumptions. I’m guessing that the fact that there are so few real world comparisons to shutting down someone who operates out of say, a store, and someone who’s operating virtually. I just hope that Wikileaks makes regular backups, just in case someone who isn’t a complete idiot goes after them and finds their data center, not just a name registration…