PDA

View Full Version : Violation of First Amendmend rights?



cotts135
12-02-2010, 05:41 AM
Amazon yesterday pulled Wikileaks from it's servers after they were contacted by Sen Joe Lieberman. Sen Lieberman is chairman of the Homeland Securtiy committee.

Lieberman said: "[Amazon's] decision to cut off WikiLeaks now is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies WikiLeaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material. I call on any other company or organization that is hosting WikiLeaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them."

To me this sounds alarm bells and sends up red flags in a big way. When the government can dictate to some private company what web sites it should host I think we should all be concerned. It is somewhat similiar to what we see China doing when something comes across the internet that they don't like and don't want the citizenry to know about.

subroc
12-02-2010, 05:55 AM
I believe some of the material is still classified. It is illegal for a United States citizen to posses material they have not been cleared to view. Just because it has been released does not reduce or eliminate the classification by law.

road kill
12-02-2010, 06:34 AM
Amazon yesterday pulled Wikileaks from it's servers after they were contacted by Sen Joe Lieberman. Sen Lieberman is chairman of the Homeland Securtiy committee.

Lieberman said: "[Amazon's] decision to cut off WikiLeaks now is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies WikiLeaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material. I call on any other company or organization that is hosting WikiLeaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them."

To me this sounds alarm bells and sends up red flags in a big way. When the government can dictate to some private company what web sites it should host I think we should all be concerned. It is somewhat similiar to what we see China doing when something comes across the internet that they don't like and don't want the citizenry to know about.
Funny, nary a word was spoken about this when these leaks were making Bush look bad, but now...............the plot thickens!!:cool:


RK

Joe S.
12-02-2010, 06:52 AM
Funny, nary a word was spoken about this when these leaks were making Bush look bad, but now...............the plot thickens!!:cool:


RK

It is not a matter of making President Bush or President Obama look bad, it is a matter of making AMERICA look bad.

Global Regards,

Joe S.

Joe S.
12-02-2010, 07:03 AM
It is illegal for a United States citizen to posses material they have not been cleared to view.

Executive Order 13526, Section 1.7.(a) states is illegal for the United States of America to classify information for the sole purpose of avoiding embarrassment.

Slippery Slope Regards,

Joe S.

road kill
12-02-2010, 07:28 AM
It is not a matter of making President Bush or President Obama look bad, it is a matter of making AMERICA look bad.

Global Regards,

Joe S.

To you, perhaps, but not to all.


RK

cotts135
12-02-2010, 07:32 AM
Funny, nary a word was spoken about this when these leaks were making Bush look bad, but now...............the plot thickens!!:cool:


RK

Not sure what you might be referencing but my point is that when government restricts speech this is something to be alarmed about, besides I know you might find it hard to believe but I actually voted for Bush..................2 times:p

road kill
12-02-2010, 08:01 AM
Not sure what you might be referencing but my point is that when government restricts speech this is something to be alarmed about, besides I know you might find it hard to believe but I actually voted for Bush..................2 times:p

There is more to this story.
Not sure why the uproar about this based on what little I have read.

Can't wait to see the "more!"

BTW--I am with you on this.


stan b

Joe S.
12-02-2010, 10:02 AM
To you, perhaps, but not to all.


RK

Really?

So if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that it better to smear the United States than a past of sitting President? Or are you suggesting that it is ok to smear the United States AND the sitting President as long as the past President isn't smeared?

Interesting Regards,

Joe S.

road kill
12-02-2010, 10:05 AM
Really?

So if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that it better to smear the United States than a past of sitting President? Or are you suggesting that it is ok to smear the United States AND the sitting President as long as the past President isn't smeared?

Interesting Regards,

Joe S.
What profound cognitive skills.

No, that is not what I am suggesting Joe.


RK

Eric Johnson
12-02-2010, 10:17 AM
From what I've seen, Sen Leiberman talked to the folks at Amazon and they voluntarily acted against Wikileaks. There's nothing close to a 1st Amendment violation there.

Eric

Cody Covey
12-02-2010, 10:33 AM
not only that. They aren't citing that as the reason they took it down. They were getting Denial of Service attacked and didn't want their servers to be compromised because of that one website.

Joe S.
12-02-2010, 10:50 AM
What profound cognitive skills.

No, that is not what I am suggesting Joe.


RK

What are you suggesting?

Regards,

Joe S.

road kill
12-02-2010, 10:54 AM
What are you suggesting?

Regards,

Joe S.

I am suggesting that when these leaks were bad for Bush, many here were OK with it.

Now that the worm has turned it's an issue.

Ain't that right Roger???


RK

Blackstone
12-02-2010, 02:12 PM
I donít see it as a 1st Amendment violation. There is a difference between asking Amazon to remove Wikileaks (for obvious reasons) and forcing them to remove it.

I was not a fan of George Bush, but it was wrong to leak the information when he was in office, and itís wrong now. Hopefully the person(s) that provided Wikileaks with the information will be severely penalized.

cotts135
12-02-2010, 02:28 PM
From what I've seen, Sen Leiberman talked to the folks at Amazon and they voluntarily acted against Wikileaks. There's nothing close to a 1st Amendment violation there.

Eric

I hardly think it was voluntary although that is the correct thing for the Senator and Amazon to say. A large corporation like Amazon I am sure has many reasons not to piss of the government. Why is Joe Lieberman telling any outlet that distributes news to take it off there servers.

road kill
12-02-2010, 02:55 PM
I hardly think it was voluntary although that is the correct thing for the Senator and Amazon to say. A large corporation like Amazon I am sure has many reasons not to piss of the government. Why is Joe Lieberman telling any outlet that distributes news to take it off there servers.


.....and what's next???


RK

Eric Johnson
12-02-2010, 02:57 PM
You are asking us to disprove a negative. Can't be done. Under the informal rules of Internet debate that have existed for years, it's your role to prove that the government violated the 1st amendment rights of Amazon.

Amazon says that they were suffering denial of service attacks and Lieberman's contact was just another "straw". From my reading, Lieberman's contact was in the line of information gathering, something the chairman of a Senate committee dealing with security might well do.

Eric

dnf777
12-02-2010, 03:08 PM
There is more to this story.
Not sure why the uproar about this based on what little I have read.

Can't wait to see the "more!"

BTW--I am with you on this.
stan b


Sounds like a lot of high-level embarassment, but not much more. If embarassments affect people's willingness to participate in upper level diplomacy, then it will have an effect.

As for your politicizing this leak, I don't see how that is the case? Many of these records were released or stolen under Bush, so they DO make him look bad, if you want to put that slant on it. (as well as Obama)

Personally, I don't look at it that way. I'm more concerned at how any one indivudual gained access to such a diverse set of documents, compiled them, and distributed them without getting caught in the process. I bet many governments, agencies, companies, individuals are re-assessing their cyber security at this point.

cotts135
12-02-2010, 04:32 PM
You are asking us to disprove a negative. Can't be done. Under the informal rules of Internet debate that have existed for years, it's your role to prove that the government violated the 1st amendment rights of Amazon.

Amazon says that they were suffering denial of service attacks and Lieberman's contact was just another "straw". From my reading, Lieberman's contact was in the line of information gathering, something the chairman of a Senate committee dealing with security might well do.

Eric

Fair enough, first though this is just an opinion based on what I have read.
This is what Rep. Peter King Republican New York had to say about it.

"It is unfortunate that it took Amazon five months to terminate its relationships with WikiLeaks, and only after having political pressure applied,"
"This situation should serve as an example for all private US and international companies that conducting business with WikiLeaks is intolerable and against American interests,"
Not positive but I think he is referring to Senator Liebermans information gathering excursion when he mentions political pressure. Even if he isn't I think all should be concerned when the government tries to puts political pressure on anyone to curb political speech.
That second paragraph can certainly be taken as veiled threat.

Full article is here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101201/tc_afp/usdiplomacyinternetwikileakscongressamazon

Eric Johnson
12-02-2010, 06:59 PM
The article has a date of 1 Dec 2010...yesterday. Rep. King has no official position as a single Congressman (remember that he's in the minority even at that) that would allow him to "close" Amazon down to a user. That's the essence of the First Amendment.... a law.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

However, from your article, it appears that Sen. Lieberman hasn't even talked to Amazon yet.

"Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said he planned to discuss the hosting of WikiLeaks with the Seattle-based Amazon.

"I will be asking Amazon about the extent of its relationship with WikiLeaks and what it and other Web service providers will do in the future to ensure that their services are not used to distribute stolen, classified information," the independent senator from Connecticut said."

He's fact-finding.

Eric

cotts135
12-02-2010, 07:29 PM
The article has a date of 1 Dec 2010...yesterday. Rep. King has no official position as a single Congressman (remember that he's in the minority even at that) that would allow him to "close" Amazon down to a user. That's the essence of the First Amendment.... a law.

Completely irrelevant to what I said, The issue was political pressure, not whether he could shut them down




However, from your article, it appears that Sen. Lieberman hasn't even talked to Amazon yet.
Not true




"Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said he planned to discuss the hosting of WikiLeaks with the Seattle-based Amazon.

"I will be asking Amazon about the extent of its relationship with WikiLeaks and what it and other Web service providers will do in the future to ensure that their services are not used to distribute stolen, classified information," the independent senator from Connecticut said."
And you find nothing wrong with this?.............................ok


He's fact-finding.

Now that's funny:razz:

Check out this speech by President Kennedy in 1961 about government secrecy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpmi7dBet0c&feature=player_embedded

Here is Joe Lieberman in his own words about putting pressure on anyone who dare publish thinks from Wikileaks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBDAyjH8Aw0