3 ms·

It's being reported that the US gov (read: Joe Lieberman) pressured Amazon to stop hosting the site. Here is a more thorough update on this situation: http://w

It's being reported that the US gov (read: Joe Lieberman) pressured Amazon to stop hosting the site. Here is a more thorough update on this situation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-website-cables-servers-amazon http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-websit...

vaksel 16y ago
government censorship of dissenters...China would be proud. this is actually pretty stupid on their part, it's the equivalent of locking the barn after the animals escaped.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Joe Lieberman can call for whatever he wants. It's his right under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. A Senator calling for a web host to take down a site no more constitutes "government censorship" than a Senator calling for pickles not to be put on hamburgers constitutes "food and drug regulation". Down with Wikileaks! Down with pickles! The Constitution simply does not give individual Senators the power to censor websites, or, for that matter, all Senators en masse the power to circumvent the Constitution without having that action overturned by SCOTUS. China would be embarrassed --- perhaps murderously --- if its censorship apparatus was this much of a Rube Goldberg contraption.
  - michaelchisari 16y ago
    All thing being equal, sure, but I think it's obvious that Joe Lieberman calling for a site to be taken down is considerably different than you or I saying the same thing. Being a member of the most powerful people in the most powerful country in the world always affords you powers not directly enumerated in the constitution.
  - bluesnowmonkey 16y ago
    As a simple counter-example, imagine if a sitting US Senator advised the public not to do business with black people. It can be hard to distinguish the personal opinions of a government official from the edicts of his office.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      I don't see the parallel; calling for people not to do business with black people is absolutely indefensible; Lieberman would have a civil right to do so, but might also be impeached as a result.
      - Delphiza 16y ago
        What about French people? Remember "Freedom Fries"?
        tptacek 16y ago
        Are you seriously suggesting that "Freedom Fries" is as serious as an open appeal to racism? You can have the last word; I'm done here.
  - ceejayoz 16y ago
    You're assuming, of course, that there weren't veiled (or otherwise) threats of legislation or investigations that would make Amazon.com suffer commercially.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      Yes, that is what I am assuming.

vaksel 16y ago

government censorship of dissenters...China would be proud. this is actually pretty stupid on their part, it's the equivalent of locking the barn after the animals escaped.

tptacek 16y ago
Joe Lieberman can call for whatever he wants. It's his right under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. A Senator calling for a web host to take down a site no more constitutes "government censorship" than a Senator calling for pickles not to be put on hamburgers constitutes "food and drug regulation". Down with Wikileaks! Down with pickles! The Constitution simply does not give individual Senators the power to censor websites, or, for that matter, all Senators en masse the power to circumvent the Constitution without having that action overturned by SCOTUS. China would be embarrassed --- perhaps murderously --- if its censorship apparatus was this much of a Rube Goldberg contraption.
- michaelchisari 16y ago
  All thing being equal, sure, but I think it's obvious that Joe Lieberman calling for a site to be taken down is considerably different than you or I saying the same thing. Being a member of the most powerful people in the most powerful country in the world always affords you powers not directly enumerated in the constitution.
- bluesnowmonkey 16y ago
  As a simple counter-example, imagine if a sitting US Senator advised the public not to do business with black people. It can be hard to distinguish the personal opinions of a government official from the edicts of his office.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    I don't see the parallel; calling for people not to do business with black people is absolutely indefensible; Lieberman would have a civil right to do so, but might also be impeached as a result.
    - Delphiza 16y ago
      What about French people? Remember "Freedom Fries"?
      - tptacek 16y ago
        Are you seriously suggesting that "Freedom Fries" is as serious as an open appeal to racism? You can have the last word; I'm done here.
- ceejayoz 16y ago
  You're assuming, of course, that there weren't veiled (or otherwise) threats of legislation or investigations that would make Amazon.com suffer commercially.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Yes, that is what I am assuming.