how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to bent
Re: Messy said by bent: Now that these papers have seen the light of day, the FBI and IRS should be in high gear investigating the crimes the papers allege, to determine if there's enough merit to bring a case against any of the parties involved, or if the papers are forged as The Bank claims. The judge acted correctly, on prima face evidence, in ordering the site taken down. Privacy of banking records trumps freedom of speech any day of the week. Judges ordering activities that might be illegal halted until a court can determine the legality of said activities isn't out of the ordinary at all. Hmmm. Privacy trumps freedom of speech, eh? Do you wish to back this assertion up with an example from the Bill of Rights? How about a case law example from the Supreme Court? Can you provide one? Although privacy is implicit in the constitution's fourth amendment, it is not stated explicitly, especially when the government is not involved in violating one's privacy.
Yes, I agree that free speech ends with defamation (among other things) but the one sure-fire defense against the charge is TRUTH. If this turns out to be a true story and the documents are authentic, then what? If this turns out to be the case, Wikileaks has a lot of ground for a lot of action.
I have no problem with information that is potentially defamatory being removed until an investigation can be completed regarding its relevance or level of veracity, but I think that one would be hard pressed to find constitutional grounds for what this judge did -- shutting down the whole site indefinitely. As another poster here said, I smell a bribe.
And I have never heard of Wikileaks until now, but I do remember a project at MIT that went defunct a few years ago that was very similar in scope to Wikileaks. I think it was called "Government Information Awareness."
You can be assured governments and big corporations loathe these projects. I think they are a great thing for freedom and democracy. | |
 bentand IngaPremium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
 ·Comcast
| We're not talking about the constitutional right to privacy or freedom of speech because, as you point out, the government isn't involved as an interested party (yet.) We're talking about the right of a private citizen to disseminate confidential financial records not only protected by copyright law, but also I'm sure by contract with the former employee. Do you really think that should be covered under Freedom of Speech? Whistle-blower laws maybe, if the information was brought to the attention of the proper authorities, but not freedom of speech.
Don't get me wrong, Wikileaks may have had a moral obligation to publish the information to bring unpleasant facts to light about criminal financial activity (who'd have though?) by the elite of the ruling capitalist caste. Sometimes, when you grab the tiger by the tail, you get the teeth right along with it.
What I'd really be interested to see is not if Wikileaks stays down (is there really any such thing on the internet? mirrors galore.) but if any criminal prosecutions result from the leaked documents. 7:5 says there won't be.
I'll defend your Freedom of Speech with my life, but when it infringes on my privacy, be prepared speak freely through a wired jaw, literally or figuratively.
--
»www.lp.org/issues/family-budget.shtml
"That government is best which governs least" - Thoreau | |
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by bent:What I'd really be interested to see is not if Wikileaks stays down (is there really any such thing on the internet? mirrors galore.) but if any criminal prosecutions result from the leaked documents. 7:5 says there won't be. I agree. Most companies don't want the PR associated with prosecuting employee theft, defamation, etc. Even more if the company's main selling points is keeping its customers identities secret.
If they pushed for criminal theft charges, or brought a defamation suit they'd have to identify which documents are forged. Probably confront the former employee who stole the documents. And, all under oath (which is a problem if they have scruples concerning honesty, which is a big if.).
The way they're playing it now is smart. They've called into question the veracity of all the documents by asserting that some are forged. They don't have to say which is which. All they have to do is say "even if we dispute that all the documents are ours, the defendant depicts them as such, and therefore for the purpose of copyright we'll say there is no dispute in this regard."
The other interesting thing is that they have clear access to legal remedy under copyright because it's an international treaty. It's not clear if it's as easy to claim violation of trade secrets (DMCA) or defamation if they're not a US entity. Does DMCA and defamation laws, access to US courts apply to foreigners without a treaty? (Maybe the bank has US offices.).
Mark | |
| reply to bent
This is really at the heart of the matter and a great post.
Freedom of speech is one thing, there is no "freedom to post confidential information if one chooses".
You are right again on the channel for that information, if you have confidential evidence of a crime, there are the proper channels to follow...IE going to the proper authorities.
That being said, the only problem I see with this is that the crimes as witnessed and understood by "Deep Throat" about the Nixon administration were brought to the media, because the "proper authorities" were actually the problem. What would have happened if a judge stopped the newspapers from printing the "confidential" information? To that end isn't the website working in a sort of similar fashion, when the proper authorities do not do their job, the "bright lights" of the media are often the only thing that can expose corruption. | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by AnonProxy:That being said, the only problem I see with this is that the crimes as witnessed and understood by "Deep Throat" about the Nixon administration were brought to the media, "Deep Throat" only told reporters where to look. He didn't provide specific documents. Even if he did, government works are not (or weren't back then) copyrightable. And, even if Deep Throat produced documents, the newspapers didn't publish them.
Personally I'm ok with publishing the documents. I just wouldn't cry about the outcome. It sounds like "being able to dish it out, but not take it."
Mark | | |
|
|
