Share
A US District Judge has reversed his earlier ruling against whistleblower site Wikileaks, after he originally shut down its primary domain following a complaint from Swiss bank Julius Baer & Co.
Wikileaks logo.
The bank had brought the suit after alleging Wikileaks had received, and published, stolen documents from a former employee.
The site promises anonymity for whistleblowers who have received documents incriminating an organisation yet do not wish to divulge their identity.
Wikileaks published documents which appear to show Julius Baer laundering money through the Cayman Islands -- a suggestion the bank rejects. It alleged the person who removed the documents had stolen them and had a grudge against the company.
However Judge Jeffrey White, under pressure for his original ruling to close down the site, conceded that his original judgement did raise, "...serious questions of prior restraint (on speech) and possible violations of the First Amendment."
The judge also noted that the effect of his decision only drew media attention and the site continued its work through mirror sites. He said this obviously was not what the bank intended when it brought the action.
"The record currently before the Court indicates that even the broad injunction issued as to Dynadot had exactly the opposite effect as was intended," he said in his judgement.
"The private, stolen material was transmitted over the internet via mirror websites which are maintained in different countries all over the world. Further, the press generated by this Court’s action increased public attention to the fact that such information was readily accessible online. The Court is not convinced that Plaintiffs have made an adequate showing that any restraining injunction in this case would serve its intended purpose."
"In addition, there is evidence in the record that “the cat is out of the bag” and the issuance of an injunction would therefore be ineffective to protect the professed privacy rights of the bank’s clients."
However Julius Baer & Co issued a statement denying it had intended to violate anyone's free speech.
"It is not and has never been Julius Baer's intention to stifle anyone's right to free speech. Indeed, Julius Baer has specifically made no attempt to remove material on the website which refers to the organisation but which does not include information personal to its customers," the bank said in the statement.
Wikileaks, in a statement released on its site, said the reversal was a "blow" to Baer's "censorship attempts" and added "WikiLeaks will not be cowed by those who would silence the truth. It shall continue to be a forum for the citizens of the world to disclose issues of social, moral and ethical concern."
The case will continue next month though Judge White told Baer the case may be dismissed from court.
Interested in a more interactive TTH? Join our Facebook Group Want regular updates from The Tech Herald? Follow us on Twitter
Advertising
Comment on this Story