Wikileaks are, in our view, are being used to attack free speech. As EFF say, in launching their campaign to stop censorship:
This debate has turned into a massive attack on the right of intermediaries to publish truthful information.
Make no mistake — this is about much more than WikiLeaks. Shutting down sites like WikiLeaks is a very serious attack on freedom of expression. …
Like it or not, WikiLeaks has become the emblem for one of the most important battles for our rights that is likely to come along in our lifetimes. We cannot sit this one out.
ORG believes that, at this point in time, there is no clear case that Wikileaks has done anything illegal.
Companies including Amazon and PayPal have pulled the plug on Wikileaks, under direct pressure from the US government. As such, the US government is engaged in a campaign to suppress critical comment and free speech. They have a right to take the leaker to court, and no doubt will do so: but direct and personal political intervention to remove websites is highly dangerous.
These companies now hold the keys to our ability to exercise our freedom of expression. This is a greater responsibility than playing nice with outraged politicians. Corporations should be insisting on the due process of law.
What you can do
- You can join ORG to defend freedom of speech on the Internet
- You can download avatars produced by EFF and use them online; and join their twibbon campaign
- You can write to Amazon and PayPal to tell them they do not have your support
Mark - ISPreview:
Dec 09, 2010 at 01:45 PM
For once I might have to disagree with you :) . Up until very recently I was a strong supporter of Wikileaks, until it released documents that revealed the names of informants for military operations, which put their lives in danger. That is ridiculously stupid.
It has also revealed lots of confidential personal information. As an advocate of personal privacy I cannot adopt one rule for me and another for somebody else, so I am frustrated that Wikileaks chose not to properly redact certain information from its releases.
It also published bizarre things that have no purpose in its remit, such as a Top List of Places that terrorists could target in the U.S and around the world. It was at this point that I totally lost faith in the sites competency to carry out a legitimate remit.
Should the whole Wikileaks site be removed? No, but certainly some of that information shouldn't be in the public domain and the author should at least be held to account for that. Release details that could be a boon for terrorists is utterly senseless.
Alan:
Dec 09, 2010 at 02:05 PM
I'm a bit puzzled why you blame Wikileaks for releasing the top list of places - that was a choice made by one of the newspapers, and in fact other papers chose to redact the list. I'd agree with you that it probably shouldn't have been published - the list existing may be news but the contents ?
As to helping terrorists - don't buy it at all. If as is claimed a private in the US army can sing Lady Gaga and steal 1.4GB of data without any espionage training or backup then do you honestly think every serious intelligence group (including those very hostile to the USA) hasn't been doing the same for years but with rather more finesse.
It's a bit like blaming the person who tells you your password has been cracked when you used the word "secret"
Alkhemist:
Dec 09, 2010 at 02:18 PM
As stated in the article, they "have a right to take the leaker to court,...but direct and personal political intervention to remove websites is highly dangerous."
This is about transparency and being held accountable. While I agree that better discretion might be in order, the issue here is First Amendment Rights. Yes, try them in court if you think you have a case, but shutting down websites without an order is a clear violation of the First Amendment and the Right to a Free Press.
Either we defend our Constitution or we don't. Either we allow the government to do as it pleases while silencing those it doesn't like, or we stand up for what the Founders intended. There is a bigger picture here on which we need to focus.
Jim Killock:
Dec 09, 2010 at 02:50 PM
That's right, although here in the UK we have weaker protections in the first place, which makes it more important to defend these rights.
aqua:
Dec 13, 2010 at 03:57 AM
Umm why then, even as a secondary option are you suggesting PayPal as a payment option when giving you donations??????? Really what double standards- protecting our rights in the digital age-presumably as long as it doesnt interfere with -I cant even finish the sentence this is SO counterproductive and frankly just bizarre-was about to join untill I saw the PayPal option.............
Jim Killock:
Dec 15, 2010 at 09:19 AM
We'd sacrifice donations from a lot of people if we closed our PayPal account - and therefore lose a lot of money we receive in regular donations that are already set up. But we will consider stopping using PayPal for new regular donations.
aqua:
Dec 13, 2010 at 03:58 AM
So let me just clarify- we are writing to PayPal to say we withhold our support -while we are supporting you through PayPal!! Either you mean what you say or you dont- you cant play it both ways-you support Wikileaks rights to free speech- and you advocate that we stop supporting PayPal So you ACT on it. Or else you are worse than meaningless
visa lawyer:
Dec 14, 2010 at 06:20 PM
@Mark
It's a shame the diplomats were naive enough to presume that their words would only ever be available to the recipient/s; codes have been used for thousands of years... and broken for thousands of years!
You assume nobody would have known if it weren't for Wikileaks - how do we know that nobody else knew already?
Let us agree on one thing - given the weakness of humans and codes it's better for diplomats to be savvy rather than naive.
Finally, Mark - most people understand that shooting the messenger is not a solution; one could argue that the US Government had a responsibility to keep records secure - and if you think locking up one poor soul on that count is a solution I think you're adding overoptimism to the count.
If you want heads to roll - find the heads that devised the system that failed.
Generally
Given that Mr Lassange is an Australian he has broken no law.
Given that the US Government has no Copyright over the cables no law has been broken in publishing them in Europe... and yes, Copyright does appear to be the strongest case thus far.
@Jim
I can understand Amazon caving on this, as a US company the US Government could/might have frozen all its assets; the laws protecting publication do not appear to protect a host; another reason why the work of Open Rights Group is so important.
I'm not sure PayPal caved for such legally valid reason.
The Swiss bank... morality and spine have never been part of Swiss Bank marketing spiel.
NB: this is not my field of law, like many others, I've just been following the blogs.
Tim Wesson:
Dec 16, 2010 at 06:44 PM
Attn: Open Rights Group.
Have you thought of setting up a legal fund for Assange and/or Manning? As long as you don't pass on the surplus to Wikileaks itself, Visa/Mastercard/Paypal shouldn't have an argument against you. This isn't money for what they might judge to be 'illegal activity', but rather the clearly legal activity of providing legal representation.
Dallas Incentive Marketing:
Feb 11, 2011 at 07:37 PM
I disagree with the freedom of speech in this wikileaks. You should know when to voice out your opinion. What happened there is not an act of free speech but an act of conspiracy. Spilling out documents that could bring the destruction and create vulnerability to the country is a different thing. Wikileaks made it worse when it spread the word and went viral - therefore exposing a country's vulnerability. I don't mean that Wikileaks should take the blame, but also the sources for which these came.