A federal judge has forced the web site Wikileaks to shut down. The site has fought back as they state that the move to shut them down is unconstitutional. Having started up just last summer, it’s already posted a ton of documents including the 2004 Gitmo Operations Manual and others that they don’t want you to see.
Wikileaks posted internal documents which many companies may not have wanted to be released.
The website, which works in much the same way as the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia, allows anyone with information to post it anonymously. Other users could then analyse the information and discuss its reliability and significance.
Although Wikileaks’ silencing was sought by anti-democratic governments worldwide - including China, whose censors work mightily to block all access to the site - Wikileak’s plug was pulled, ironically, by a federal judge in San Francisco.
The judge ruled that the site did wrong when a bit too much information was released.
Bank Julius Baer filed papers with a U.S. District Court in San Francisco, stating that a fired executive stole documents and illegally posted them on the site, stating many documents were also changed.
The posting accused the bank of money laundering and tax evasion.
Much of the law governing the Internet remains unsettled. Still, the free speech burdens of closing down a journalistic Web site are just as serious as closing down a print publication, and courts should tread carefully.
In a statement on its site, Wikileaks compared the injunction to ones eventually overturned by the Supreme Court in the Pentagon Papers case. There, the government tried to enjoin publication by The Times and The Washington Post of a secret history of the Vietnam War.
Wikileaks vowed to continue publishing the bank’s documents on its other Web sites hosted by companies outside the United States.