EFF, ACLU Back WikiLeaks

souls writes "Seems like the forces to protect freedom-of-speech in the groundsetting Wikileaks.org case have spoken: Henry Weinstein at LA Times reports that a coalition of media and public interest organizations today urged judge Jeffrey White to rescind the shutdown of Wikileaks.org, which presents 'restraint on free speech that violated the First Amendment,' and is generally considered to become a representative case for free online speech. The dirty dozen organizations fighting for your voice and mine include the EFF, the ACLU, The Times, AP, Gannett, Hearst, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Society of Professional Journalists. Lets hope that is enough muscle to stop a judge running wild in favor of a bunch of offshore bankers! Meanwhile wikileaks is still going strong via all available other domains, and is currently organizing support and donations."

Comments

WikiLeaks is not Accountable

[Martin Spamer]

No doubt I'll get modded down for defying the slashmind groupthink but the problem I have with WikiLeaks is their cavalier disregard of accountability.

They have ignored court orders. They publish whatever they like and people seem to automatically assume that everything they say is the absolute truth, despite they having no credible track record. WikiLeaks is not a wiki in the true sense, there is no collaboration, the only people allowed to post are their little Cabal. Wikipedia, despite it's problems allows people to challenge its decisions in a publicly accountable way.

I think WikiLeaks are manipulative and deliberately courting controversy. Dig beneath the surface and all I see is another self appointed authority with a poor regard for balance.

Re:WikiLeaks is not Accountable

[esocid]

They have ignored court orders.

I don't think that they have ignored, as much as waited for a serious usage of the law. "Their legal demand to Wikileaks, Northern Rock's well-known media lawyers, Schillings, invoke the DMCA & WIPO, claim it'll be 10 years in prison for Wikileaks operators for not following the UK injunction, but then, incredibly, refuse to hand over a copy of the order unless Wikileaks' London lawyers promise not to give it to Wikileaks. Finally they claim copyright and more -- on their demands!"
That seems more like bullying than sound legal requests.

They publish whatever they like and people seem to automatically assume that everything they say is the absolute truth, despite they having no credible track record.

The purpose of their site is not to be an encyclopedia like wikipedia, rather a muckraking site that allows whistleblowers to expose illegal behavior without worrying about exposed. I realize that there are laws, which seem pretty ineffective to me, which protect whistleblowers and that they can go to press personnel but wikileaks has no obligation to owners that may want to prevent some material surfacing.

I think WikiLeaks are manipulative and deliberately courting controversy. Dig beneath the surface and all I see is another self appointed authority with a poor regard for balance.

While that may be true, that's what gives them the notoriety that they have right now. They offer a haven of yellow-journalism that serves to monitor illegal corporate behavior. If there weren't so much going on, wikileaks wouldn't have so much notoriety now would they?

Can't these places take more assertive action?

[Xest]

Why don't universities and so forth point wikileaks.org to a live Wikileaks IP address rather than the one site the judge shut down effectively bypassing the judges wishes?

Whilst many DNS providers may not follow suit, even if some did it would prove a point that a) he shouldn't have the power to shut down a site of international interest because America doesn't own the internet and b) that even if he does it's futile.