Free speech debate ignited as judge gags whistleblower site

by Rich Bowden - Feb 20 2008, 06:50

A Californian court has ordered the shut down of the whistleblower site Wikileaks.org after a judge ruled in favour of a Swiss bank which alleged a disgruntled employee had deposited stolen documents with the site.

Julius Baer Bank alleged that the employee “...engaged in a harassment and terror campaign” provided stolen documents to Wikileaks in violation of a confidentiality agreement and banking laws, reported the New York Times.

However the employee, in his submitted papers, has alleged illegal activity on the part of the bank including money laundering, tax evasion and other activities according to Wikileaks.

The case has ignited a free speech debate in the age of the Internet.

The Wikileaks project aims to make it easier for members of the public to leak information to the world by providing an on-line platform to add documents. Wikileaks defends its actions saying its content is reviewed by in-house analysts and journalists prior to being put up on the site.

Owners of the site have described the judge's decision as "unconstitutional" saying they were unaware of the bank's action against them until just hours before the proceedings.

"While First Amendment rights are not an absolute defense to reporting false information, it does appear here that Wikileaks.org is being censored without adequate opportunity to defend or explain its actions and postings," Fox Rothschild attorney Mark McCreary told LinuxInsider.

"Without further information, it is too soon to scream censorship from the rafters, but this is a case of very aggressive actions being taken by a host provider," McCreary added.

Judge Jeffrey S. White ordered domain registrar Dynadot to disable the Wikileaks.org address and "lock" it so the site could not transfer its name.

However the ruling was largely ineffectual due to the existence of "mirrorsites" maintained by Wikileaks in parts of the world not affected by the ruling. The addresses of the mirror were quickly published by supporters of the site following the judge's decision.

The site has described itself as "an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking and public analysis."

 

Around the Web

comments powered by Disqus