Violation of First Amendmend rights?

[Eric Johnson]

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]

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.]

What profound cognitive skills.

No, that is not what I am suggesting Joe.


RK

What are you suggesting?

Regards,

Joe S.

[road kill]

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]

I don’t 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 it’s wrong now. Hopefully the person(s) that provided Wikileaks with the information will be severely penalized.

[cotts135]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...congressamazon