engine feed: the arts engine blog

The entries below are not necessarily representative of the views of MediaRights, a project of Arts Engine, Inc.

Browse by: Date | Category | Author

Wikileaks and Free Speech

intern

A California judge ordered earlier this week that the whistleblower website, Wikileaks, be taken offline.  The site allows people to anonymously post classified documents in hopes of discouraging unethical and illegal behavior of corporations and governments. 

A Cayman Island Bank, Julius Baer, took the matter to court after classified documents were posted on the site that contain, “what are alleged to be highly damaging documents about the bank’s offshore activities,” according to Wikileaks. The court papers stated that the stolen documents were posted by an angry ex-employee trying to harass the company, which violated confidentiality agreements and bank laws, The New York Times said today

But the court case only seems to have given Wikileaks more publicity. I didn’t even know that the website existed until countless news sources and blogs began writing about it.

The folks at Wikileaks were prepared for something like this to happen; though Wikileaks.org is shut down, the website can still be accessed as it was put online at other locations.  A simple Google search and you can easily navigate the site and all of its classified documents.

Jonathan Werve of Wikileaks Advisory Board said on the site:

Internet censorship doesn’t work. Cut off one site, and a thousand more pop up.

Even so, the issue of the Internet and the First Amendment are at risk.  While the California Judge didn’t succeed in shutting down the website, he had complete intentions of doing so.

All this leaves me with a few questions:

Why was the website taken to court instead of the alleged disgruntled ex-employee?  He was violating the laws and agreements, not the website.

Also, if these particular documents were the center of the court case, why didn’t the judge order that only the documents in question be removed from the site, instead of the whole site itself?  The situation sets a dangerous precedent for censorship on the Internet.

And finally, if the documents are true and show that Julius Baer was engaging in illegal activities in the first place, who is taking them to court?

—Posted by Brittany Mayne

Share Your Thoughts

Name:

Email:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Page 1 of 1 pages

read the archives

our bloggers


browse by date

January 2012 | November 2011 | October 2011 | September 2011 | July 2011 | June 2011 | April 2011 | March 2011 | February 2011 | January 2011 | December 2010 | November 2010 | October 2010 | September 2010 | August 2010 | July 2010 | June 2010 | May 2010 | April 2010 | March 2010 | February 2010 | January 2010 | December 2009 | November 2009 | October 2009 | September 2009 | August 2009 | July 2009 | June 2009 | May 2009 | April 2009 | March 2009 | February 2009 | January 2009 | December 2008 | November 2008 | October 2008 | September 2008 | August 2008 | July 2008 | June 2008 | May 2008 | April 2008 | March 2008 | February 2008 | January 2008 | December 2007 | November 2007 | October 2007 | September 2007 |

browse by category

Arts Engine | Film Picks | Food for Thought | Environment | Happenings | Take Action | Web & Tech