Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EFF, ACLU Back WikiLeaks

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the scratching-eachother's-backs dept.

The Internet 116

souls writes "Seems like the forces to protect freedom-of-speech in the groundsetting Wikileaks.org case have spoken: Henry Weinstein at LA Times reports that a coalition of media and public interest organizations today urged judge Jeffrey White to rescind the shutdown of Wikileaks.org, which presents 'restraint on free speech that violated the First Amendment,' and is generally considered to become a representative case for free online speech. The dirty dozen organizations fighting for your voice and mine include the EFF, the ACLU, The Times, AP, Gannett, Hearst, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Society of Professional Journalists. Lets hope that is enough muscle to stop a judge running wild in favor of a bunch of offshore bankers! Meanwhile wikileaks is still going strong via all available other domains, and is currently organizing support and donations."

cancel ×

116 comments

Let me be one of the first dozen people to say... (5, Insightful)

NetDanzr (619387) | more than 6 years ago | (#22572852)

UCLA != ACLU

Re:Let me be one of the first dozen people to say. (5, Funny)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22572928)

Of course UCLA = ACLU.

This message is brought to you by the DNA ( National Dyslexic Association )

Re:Let me be one of the first dozen people to say. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 6 years ago | (#22573266)

Q: How do you identify a dyslexic, agnostic insomniac?
A: They lie awake at night, wondering whether there's a dog.

(This joke was brought to you by the Society for the Perpetuation of Misunderstandings of Dyslexia.)

Re:Let me be one of the first dozen people to say. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22580944)

Man, I used to get laughs on that joke back in 6th grade. It sure was hilarious back then.

Re:Let me be one of the first dozen people to say. (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#22573366)

Why don't they ever have dyxlesia? I mean, you'd think that this is a word that would get screwed up, right?

Re:Let me be one of the first dozen people to say. (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22573592)

This message is brought to you by the DNA ( National Dyslexic Association )

And the DAM (Mothers Against Dyslyxia) not to be confused with the DAMM (Drunks Against Mad Mothers).

Headline on a newspaper in one of the Police Squad movies: "Dyslexia for found cure!"

Re:Let me be one of the first dozen people to say. (1)

NetDanzr (619387) | more than 6 years ago | (#22573594)

Of course UCLA = ACLU.
I must be getting too old, tired and overworked, but my first reaction was that you were assigning UCLA the value of ACLU...

Re:Let me be one of the first dozen people to say. (1)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 6 years ago | (#22574524)

Zap Brannigan: I've got a very sex learning disorder. What's it called Kip?

Kip: "Sexlexia", sir.

Re:Let me be one of the first dozen people to say. (2, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 6 years ago | (#22574848)

What do Disclosure Non-Agreements have to do with this?

Re:Let me be one of the first dozen people to say. (2, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22572956)

UCLA, ACLU, potato, potahto...

Although, I'm not altogether certain what why the United Crazy Lunatics' Association is involved in this case ...

free speech can be overriden (3, Funny)

kevgaxxana (1197617) | more than 6 years ago | (#22572864)

during times of war or when a threat of national security is imminent. wikileaks poses a threat to national securtiy and should be shut-down

Re:free speech can be overriden (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22572888)

yeah! if you leak too much, you will sink!

that's the way any fascist state works.

Re:free speech can be overriden (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22572988)

Wikileaks IS national security. it secures against the threat of the corrupt and criminal within our own government. They are the anonymous that watch the watchmen.

Re:free speech can be overriden (1)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 6 years ago | (#22575108)

Yup... thanks to Wikileaks, there's no corruption in our government anymore.

Re:free speech can be overriden (1)

marzipanic (1147531) | more than 6 years ago | (#22573058)

Speaking as one who had her Hospital records "lost" due to a blunder, I (along with a massive amount of others) would be grateful for such things to be exposed instead of being buried and passed off as another statistic.

We know most of these things anyway, it is just nice to read the "proof" although it does state frauds do happen.

How exactly does it pose a threat to National security? It is things we all ready know, half the world has the data disks for and as for the war, the true heroes are the fighters not the powers that be.

Freedom of speech, bring it on. The master criminals will surely be reading "wikileaks" to find information and get ideas NOT have a team of covert hackers, undercover spies etc breaking into national security databases or say, making off with data disks. Wiki's or hard facts?

Re:free speech can be overriden (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22573248)

Speaking as one who had her Hospital records "lost" due to a blunder, I (along with a massive amount of others) would be grateful for such things to be exposed instead of being buried and passed off as another statistic.
How would you like to have your personal medical details posted as a part of a posting on wikileaks ? .. if your insurance company refused to renew your medical insurance as a consequence ? I'm not saying that wikileaks should be shut down - but I'd like slashdotters to think twice before resorting to the routine "everything should be posted online for everyone to see". Peoples lives will be ruined as a consequence of this.

Re:free speech can be overriden (2, Insightful)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 6 years ago | (#22575506)

Wikileaks would not post the actual data, it would post a story about how the data had been compromised. They are in the business of reporting whistle-blowing activities - not committing the same crimes they are trying to prevent by making them public.

And if they did post protected medical information, it would be very easy to legally have it removed under the HIPAA [hhs.gov] laws, and would likely be fined heavily for the violation.


*read-->think-->understand-->post* in that order only

Re:free speech can be overriden (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#22581294)

Do you really think they wouldn't post the actual data? I mean we are talking about this specifically because they posted account and identity information so complete that the complain to the judge who ordered it to be shut off was over the possibility of identity theft from the information.

If it would have just been the reports of it with details of the papers withheld to protect the people, that would be one thing. But the entire problem we are seeing now stems from the exposure of personal information. It doesn't seem to support your conclusion.

Re:free speech can be overriden (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22573376)

I'm old enough to remember when Americans proudly pointed out their country had more freedoms...And those freedoms were earned by the blood of many soldiers over many generations.

We now hear it is necessary to put a stop to these freedoms, and they will endanger our soldiers, or our country.

Interesting perspective on the same facts.

Q. Remember what we used to call leaders of countries, who strong-armed everyone in order to run everything their own way?

A. Dictators.

I can think of numerous dictators, over the centuries, that would support that very same perspective.

Re:free speech can be overriden (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#22581038)

Your actually confused by the shinny lights left from not have countries worse then our that could actually invade and pose a real threat to our direct sovereignty.

You see, there always were limits to free speech and protected national security and top secret information. Now that Russia is free and friendly and the USSR isn't a threat anymore, people like you get confused easily between what it different. All that has changes is your perception.

Re:free speech can be overriden (4, Insightful)

Ice Tiger (10883) | more than 6 years ago | (#22573138)

Which nation?

Re:free speech can be overriden (1)

adpsimpson (956630) | more than 6 years ago | (#22573442)

Which nation?

Good question, I'm glad you asked.

Certainly not Iran [slashdot.org] .

Maybe Pakistan [slashdot.org] found something blasphemous? Or maybe China [slashdot.org] found something against their national interest? Maybe Canada [slashdot.org] got disgruntled by the unauthorised distribution of copyright data on it?

Or then again, maybe a corru^H^H^H^H targeted US company found all of the above?

Re:free speech can be overriden (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22573834)

The bank in question is Swiss.

Re:free speech can be overriden (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 6 years ago | (#22574876)

Pick one. Freedom of information is dangerous to every single national government, even if not all of them are as ironically honest as the US, China, Pakistan, etc. in admitting this.

Re:free speech can be overriden (2, Insightful)

MWoody (222806) | more than 6 years ago | (#22574020)

When was the last time the US government wasn't either at war with someone or claiming that a threat to national security was imminent?

Re:free speech can be overriden (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#22581134)

That would be most likely right before we got sucked into WW2 because of a lack of attention by the European communities which allowed a country that had been sanctioned ignore those sanctions under the guise that they wouldn't be targeted. The outcome of that period of sticking the proverbial thumbs up people's own asses in an effort to sit on their hands was more death and destruction then anything the US has been part of since.

Maybe there is a good reason for this.

Re:free speech can be overriden (1)

immcintosh (1089551) | more than 6 years ago | (#22575510)

during times of war or when a threat of national security is imminent. [citation needed] wikileaks poses a threat to national securtiy and should be shut-down [citation needed]

Re:free speech can be overriden (2, Informative)

kelnos (564113) | more than 6 years ago | (#22578790)

Actually, if you RTFA (I know, I know...), it references a landmark case during the Nixon administration that ruled that prior restraint cannot be applied in these matters, even in cases where so-called "national security" is at stake.

UCLA or ACLU? (0, Redundant)

norminator (784674) | more than 6 years ago | (#22572878)

The headline says UCLA, but the summary and the article seem to mention the ACLU...

I realize they both have the same letters in them, but this seems pretty careless. Unless the Union for Civil Liberties in America is involved...

Re:UCLA or ACLU? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22572948)

Usual candy lemon again

Re:UCLA or ACLU? (2, Funny)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22573302)

I realize they both have the same letters in them, but this seems pretty careless.

Ewe muss bee knew hear!

Re:UCLA or ACLU? (2, Funny)

Zephyn (415698) | more than 6 years ago | (#22573334)

> I realize they both have the same letters in them, but this seems pretty careless. Unless
> the Union for Civil Liberties in America is involved...

"Surely we must be united against the common enemy!"

"The Civil Liberty Union of America?"

"No! The censors!"

Wait, what? (1)

RedDirt (3122) | more than 6 years ago | (#22572908)

Um, I don't think it's the University of California, Los Angeles backing WikiLeaks.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

joe_bruin (266648) | more than 6 years ago | (#22577214)

Um, I don't think it's the University of California, Los Angeles backing WikiLeaks.
Hi, I'm Joe Bruin,

On behalf of the University of California, Los Angeles, the Board of Regents of the University of California, and governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, I would like to officially support WikiLeaks.

Go Number One Bruins

Now we know. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22572914)

1)Create an anonymous leak web site.

2)Get shut down by a court.

3)Ask for donations to support your cause.

4)Profit!!!

Re:Now we know. (2, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 6 years ago | (#22573456)

1)Create an anonymous leak web site.
2) Be jailed for child pornography, drug trafficking and... terrorism!

Next time, the government will react faster.

UCLA! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22572932)

lol

Am I the only one .... (2, Funny)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22572962)

who, upon reading the headline, imagined members of the EFF and UCLA (I'll let others decide if that was a typo) holding hands in a human barricade across a nuclear bunker in an effort to protect it from a physical attack ?

Re:Am I the only one .... (1)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 6 years ago | (#22573320)

Yes.

Let's hope not (2, Insightful)

Trails (629752) | more than 6 years ago | (#22572964)

Lets hope that is enough muscle strength to stop a judge running wild in favor of a bunch of offshore bankers
No, let's hope it isn't. I'm not saying I think wikileaks should be shut down. I'm saying that I loathe the notion that what it takes to get it back up is "muscle". I hope the wikileaks suppression order is rescinded because of sound legal arguments.

Re:Let's hope not (5, Insightful)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22573472)

No, let's hope it isn't. I'm not saying I think wikileaks should be shut down. I'm saying that I loathe the notion that what it takes to get it back up is "muscle". I hope the wikileaks suppression order is rescinded because of sound legal arguments.

You must be new here.

Not to slashdot, but to THIS PLANET. Here, we follow the Golden Rule: he who has the gold, rules. The US Constitution, the Magna Carta, all those other lovely documents all over the world were written with one purpose in mind - to give you the illusion of freedom while your collar remains firmly around your neck and chained to the grindstone so you can generate more wealth for the people that actually matter. The Gatses and Ellisons and Hiltons and Trumps own and rule the world, and if you believe otherwise you've bought into the illusion they want you to keep.

Make no mistake about it, the laws you must abide by can be safely ignored by them. They can change those laws if they want to; you never will. They own the media and the governments and they will convince you that the boot on your head is a good thing and you will clamor for another stomping from them.

Who should you vote for next election? It doesn't matter, all the candidates are owned by the same people. None of "your" representatives actually represent you.

The only thing I can't figure out is why they let the internet happen. Seems like a really bad move on their part; now I have a voice.

Re:Let's hope not (0, Troll)

ShedPlant (1041034) | more than 6 years ago | (#22573904)

Who should you vote for next election? It doesn't matter, all the candidates are owned by the same people.
Except Ron Paul!

Re:Let's hope not (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22574098)

Well, he's not going to get elected, is he? Have you seen any of his views aired in the mainstream media? Me either, CNN and Fox treat him like a joke, and most American cows follow right along.

I voted for him in the primaries, but I'm afraid I'll either be voting Libertarian or Green in the general election.

Re:Let's hope not (1)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#22574906)

And Dennis Kucinich, who actually gives a rat's ass about the average person, unlike your hero Ron Paul. Admit it, you love him because you think he'll restore power and dignity to upper middle class white guys like yourself. In general, Ron Paul supporters I've met are some of the most selfish, least civic minded people I've ever met. Ron Paul doesn't want to change the system, you'd hate him if he did. You just want a bigger piece of the pie, and that's what he promises. More pie for middle class white guys.

Re:Let's hope not (1)

moeinvt (851793) | more than 6 years ago | (#22576094)

Despite what George Bush would have you think, the President isn't supposed to be Supreme Dictator of the nation. Ron Paul is running for President of these United States. If you would spend 15 minutes and exercise a bit of open-minded patience and intelligence in studying his viewpoints, you would realize that he is dedicated to policies that are firmly rooted in The Constitution. Civil liberties, non-interventionist foreign policy, and limited government. The only thing he wants to do to the proverbial "pie" you speak of is to make sure that the FEDERAL government gets a smaller piece. If the states want to raise taxes on those mean, selfish, middle-class White guys (I hope that no states would pursue such racist policies) President Paul wouldn't stop them. What he would stop is illegal and un-Constitutional war, warrantless wiretapping, Real ID, illegal immigration, the Patriot Act, inflationary monetary policy and obscene levels of Federal spending. Supporting massively bureaucratic government health, welfare and education programs may give you a warm fuzzy, but it isn't being "civic minded". Working to restore your freedom IS.

Re:Let's hope not (1)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#22576590)

I've studied Ron's views. I can't stand them. He wants to restore people's freedom to die cold and hungry under a bridge. He wants to make sure you aren't 'forced' to care that people are dying cold and hungry under bridges. That's the 'freedom' he offers.

Re:Let's hope not (1)

moeinvt (851793) | more than 6 years ago | (#22577662)

"I've studied Ron's views. I can't stand them. He wants to restore people's freedom to die cold and hungry under a bridge. He wants to make sure you aren't 'forced' to care that people are dying cold and hungry under bridges. That's the 'freedom' he offers."

You may have done some studies of Dr. Paul's views, but you've made a knee-jerk emotional reaction in interpreting them. As I pointed out, Ron Paul is running for Federal government office, so the policies he is advocating will be limited to implementation at that level. Your conclusion is that opposing some Federal government program is equivalent to opposing the NEED that it was meant to address. Since many(most?) Federal programs fail miserably in achieving their stated goals, you can't equate the program with the need.

For example, the fact that I want to see the U.S. Department of Education eradicated does NOT mean that I am opposed to education. Quite the contrary. What I AM opposed to is a massive and expensive Federal bureaucracy eating up education dollars in administrative expenses and forcing unfunded BS mandates like NCLB down the throats of our local schools. Who do you think CARES more about the quality of education in my local school, and who is in the best position to set policies and allocate resources to address our education needs? The parents, teachers and concerned citizens in the local community, OR a bunch of Federal employees sitting in air conditioned offices in Washington D.C.?

If you're worried about people dying cold and hungry under a bridge, you should be outraged by the idea that your Federal government is spending hundreds of billions of tax dollars on illegal wars, and is maintaining a network of several hundred permanent U.S. military bases all over the world. We also have the Federal government to thank for our current system of trade policies and monetary policies that have eroded the real wealth and real income of the working class. If they're supposed to be taking care of the hungry and the homeless, they're doing a piss-poor job of it. The smart thing to do is to take the wealth and power out of the hands of a Federal government that has systematically wasted and abused it, and return it to the people and the states. I think that's what Ron Paul is advocating, and that's why I support him.

Re:Let's hope not (4, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22574064)

The only thing I can't figure out is why they let the internet happen. Seems like a really bad move on their part; now I have a voice.

I can think of two possibilities with respect to your worldview. Either they don't have the kind of control you think they do, or it's really a grand distraction to make you think you have a voice when you really don't have one at all.

Re:Let's hope not (1)

mapsjanhere (1130359) | more than 6 years ago | (#22575074)

People who have a voice in their parents basement are not nearly as scary as people having a voice in the street. Let them have their internet, makes it easier to document their deeds and to nap those few they rather not have heard (like those that would take up the rocks).

Re:Let's hope not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22575140)

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams

Re:Let's hope not (1)

immcintosh (1089551) | more than 6 years ago | (#22575564)

Think about it though, really. Being able to talk and having a Voice are altogether different. The internet lets everybody talk. A lot. That doesn't mean it gives anybody a Voice.

Not to say I agree with his world view--my own take is that we are where we are by virtue of an ingenious combination of arrogant shortsightedness and stupendous incompetence.

Re:Let's hope not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22574254)

Who should you vote for next election? It doesn't matter, all the candidates are owned by the same people. None of "your" representatives actually represent you.

What gives you reason to believe Obama is owned? I don't see that. Since he is one of the likely choices, if this is true, I really want to know in what way. This is important stuff.

Re:Let's hope not (2, Informative)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22574986)

A little googling found this [newsmeat.com] and more reliably this [opensecrets.org] . The last link is from opensecrets.org, which reports that over half of all contributions to him came from businesses. I found this bit of ABC News mudslinging [go.com] by Clinton to be interesting:

"Sen. Obama has some questions to answer about his dealings with one of his largest contributors Exelon, a big nuclear power company; apparently he cut some deals behind closed doors to protect them from full disclosure of the nuclear industry," she said.
<snip>
Obama's spokesperson, Bill Burton, however did return fire.

"Leave it to Senator Clinton to attack Barack Obama for a bill that she actually co-sponsored and supported. Instead of playing the same Washington games that people are sick of, she should prove how fully vetted she is by finally releasing her tax returns so that voters can see where the millions of dollars she's dropped into her campaign are coming from," Burton said.
McCain, the Republican nominee, is a Republican. At least the Republican wing of the Corporate Republicrat Party is honest about who holds their leashes.

Re:Let's hope not (1)

rmdir -r * (716956) | more than 6 years ago | (#22577616)

more reliably this [opensecrets.org] . The last link is from opensecrets.org, which reports that over half of all contributions to him came from businesses.

You didn't actually read that page did you. 98.3% of the money he has raised comes from individuals, and of the PAC money he has received, 50% was from businesses. Granted it is hard to read, and not all the graphs add up, but still, read your source:
  • 102 MILLION from individuals
  • 600 thousand from businesses

Not exactly your smoking gun.

Re:Let's hope not (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22577988)

There's a graph, not much to read on that page. I just went back to recheck and OOPS, I think I slashdotted the poor feckers... OK here it is.

2003-2008 PAC Contribution Breakdown
Business $665,903 (54.3%)
Labor $286,400 (23.3%)
Ideological/Single Issue $274,394 (22.4%)

Re:Let's hope not (1)

suprcvic (684521) | more than 6 years ago | (#22574596)

The US Constitution, the Magna Carta, all those other lovely documents all over the world were written with one purpose in mind - to give you the illusion of freedom
So you were present during the creation of these documents then? Please share with us your method of time travel. Seriously, nobody can say what those documents were written for beyond the face value which is freedom. I'm sorry you're just too jaded to appreciate that those were the intentions and those intentions have been perverted.

Re:Let's hope not (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22575174)

I'm sorry you're just too jaded to appreciate that those were the intentions and those intentions have been perverted.

Actually I can't argue with that at all. In fact I wrote a K5 article [kuro5hin.org] a few years ago that expoused exactly that sentiment.

Re:Let's hope not (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 6 years ago | (#22575584)

Hey look on the bright side - pessimistic cynical people are hardly ever let down by anything. We already assumed the worst would happen. When it does, we aren't shocked. When it doesn't, we get to be pleasantly surprised (but then instantly suspicious).

Re:Let's hope not (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22576858)

I always say the optimist is almost always disappointed, while the pessimist is often happily surprised. My Grandma said "hope for the best but plan for the worst".

Re:Let's hope not (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 6 years ago | (#22574924)

The only thing I can't figure out is why they let the internet happen. Seems like a really bad move on their part; now I have a voice.


That's what they want you to think!

(No, actually I think we might stand a chance now.)

Re:Let's hope not (1)

The One and Only (691315) | more than 6 years ago | (#22575096)

You know, the main reason it's so difficult to debunk these rants isn't because they're wrong so much as because they're meaningless.

Re:Let's hope not (1)

Arccot (1115809) | more than 6 years ago | (#22575194)

No, let's hope it isn't. I'm not saying I think wikileaks should be shut down. I'm saying that I loathe the notion that what it takes to get it back up is "muscle". I hope the wikileaks suppression order is rescinded because of sound legal arguments.

You must be new here.

Not to slashdot, but to THIS PLANET. Here, we follow the Golden Rule: he who has the gold, rules. The US Constitution, the Magna Carta, all those other lovely documents all over the world were written with one purpose in mind - to give you the illusion of freedom while your collar remains firmly around your neck and chained to the grindstone so you can generate more wealth for the people that actually matter. The Gatses and Ellisons and Hiltons and Trumps own and rule the world, and if you believe otherwise you've bought into the illusion they want you to keep.


What freedom is it you are lacking?

Look at what happens around the world, compared to the US. Our political dissidents are not assassinated, or disappeared. We can speak out, clearly and loudly against the government. We can purchase and train with weapons. We aren't forced to pray to God, Allah, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can apply for any job you want, and not be worried the government will blackball you and prevent it. The government doesn't tell me who to marry, where to live, or how much I should be making. I can start my own business. If I do a good job with it, I can make alot of money. I can even move to another country, if the other country is OK with it.

Are there abuses? Absolutely. Gitmo, the No Fly List, and many other things are not as they should be. But we can see how to improve it. In many places around the world, the government is so messed up, there's no place to start. We can improve our government without revolution.

Personal freedom in the US is almost at the maximum reasonable limit. Sure, I have to pay taxes, but I understand why. I can't incite violence, but I agree with that, too. I cannot thing of a single, fundamental freedom we don't have in practice.

Re:Let's hope not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22575556)

Our political dissidents are not assassinated, or disappeared.
Says you. Fact is, the USA could just be better at it. That way lies paranoia, of course.

Re:Let's hope not (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22576770)

What freedom is it you are lacking?

Freedom of choice for one. I can't legally grow a certain species of plant [wikipedia.org] , or posess it, or smoke its dried buds. I don't have the right to bear arms; I must get permission to even own a firearm. If I walk down the street of any city carrying a shotgun, I will be jailed. The police can search my property without a warrant, and in fact did twice last year. [slashdot.org]

"Hate crime" laws mean you don't have freedom of speech.

I think I already linked this old K5 article Liberty? What liberty? [kuro5hin.org]

Our political dissidents are not assassinated, or disappeared

Three words: Martin Luther King [wikipedia.org] .

We can speak out, clearly and loudly against the government

If you speak out loudly and clearly against one of the corporations that own the government you'll be hit with a SLAPP suit.

You can apply for any job you want, and not be worried the government will blackball you and prevent it.

You might want to read some history [wikipedia.org] . The history I refer to happened within my lifetime.

Are there abuses? Absolutely. Gitmo, the No Fly List, and many other things are not as they should be

Well, you'll get no argument from me there.

Sure, I have to pay taxes

"Freedom" is freedom OF, not freedom FROM. And just because you don't want to engage in a particular activity you have no freedom to do doesn't mean you're free. That K5 article is about three years old, things have gotten worse in the meantime.

Nothing you do that doesn't harm me should be illegal.

-mcgrew

Re:Let's hope not (1)

slothman32 (629113) | more than 6 years ago | (#22577030)

"compared to the US"
That is true of many western countries.
Though many nations do do that sort of things as well.

"We can purchase and train with weapons."
Ignoring that some people don't think that is good, though I like that.
Many felons can't.
If they only have "victimless" crimes or even things like graphita(sp)
they may not be able to purchase guns.
Plus this only applies to hand guns or rifles.
No machine guns for you, well if it was made before 1980 I believe it is legal.

"We aren't forced to pray to God, Allah, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster."
We aren't forced to per se but money does have "god" in it.
Just like "God Save the Queen" or something like that.

"The government doesn't tell me who to marry, where to live, or how much I should be making."
You can't marry people of the same sex.

"I can start my own business. If I do a good job with it, I can make alot of money."
Theoretically but not in practice.
You can start a small business but because of gov't regulations it might be overcome by big companies.

As for fundamental freedoms:
(listed by amendment number)
1st: "Think of the Children" is a good way to get rid of speech.
Many swear words and stuff like nudity and violence are censored somewhat. The FCC would fine you or not let you keep your freqency if you go against them.

4: I wonder what warrentless wiretaps are.
8: I think a sandwhich sign saying "I did this crime" in public counts as cruel and unusual
9: It is supposed to mean that you have all rights, such as privacy, and that is doesn't need to be mentioned.
In practice, though, many people say "You don't have this right" when the 9th says you do.
10: Almost everything, via the interstate commerce clause, has been decleared reasonable, from SCOTUS.
An example is that a farmer who grew his own food and tried to sell it was forced to pay a tax. The argument was that his selling might prevent interstate companies from doing so so he has an affect on other states. The Supreme Court still allowed him to be taxed.

Re:Let's hope not (1)

kelnos (564113) | more than 6 years ago | (#22578820)

Wow, sounds like someone put on his tin-foil hat too tightly this morning.

Prior Restraint (3, Insightful)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22573182)

On a broader level, attorney Thomas Burke and colleagues Handman and Kelli Sager, representing 12 media groups that filed a friend-of-the-court brief, cited the 1971 Supreme Court decision in the Pentagon Papers dispute as authority for their position.
If that is indeed the case, this judge is going to get hammered to such a blatant disregard of the Bill of .... what's that called again? Oh yeah, Bill of Rights. It's been so long. They have quite a substantial backing of groups in that amicus curiae, especially the AP and the EFF, I'm hoping that this friday will turn the tables on censorship issues a-brewing.
What did bother me was how Dynadot just rolled over and took this without batting an eye. They simply complied and let it happen without bother to contest it. Is it possible for wikileaks to get wikileaks.org changed to another domain registrar or should they just jump ship from this spineless drone?

Re:Prior Restraint (0, Troll)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#22573616)

Constitutions are for commies, queers, and terrorists. Every American knows that the only "constitution" in *this* country is God (spoken for by his loyal servant James Dobson) and George W. Bush.

Re:Prior Restraint (1)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22574528)

then color me red.
/hopes you are being sarcastic

Re:Prior Restraint (3, Informative)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 6 years ago | (#22573890)

Is it possible for wikileaks to get wikileaks.org changed to another domain registrar or should they just jump ship from this spineless drone?

1 Dynadot shall immediately lock the wikileaks.org domain name to prevent transfer of the domain name to a different domain registrar, [hostingprod.com] .


Part of the settlement with Dynadot is for them to lock the domain so it cannot be transferred. Of course should the ruling be overturned they can then change ISPs if they want.

Re:Prior Restraint (1)

SlowMovingTarget (550823) | more than 6 years ago | (#22575674)

Sorry to pick nits (I'm not new here), but the Bill of Rights is less relevant than the fact that the rights in that document have been amended into the U.S. Constitution. So if the judge's judgment gets nailed (getting hammered sounds like they buy him a few drinks...) for anything, it'll be for violation of those constitutional amendments.

It's "Ground-Breaking" or "Trend-Setting" (3, Insightful)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22573246)

WTF is "ground setting? *&$^#% editors...oh, wait, this is /.

Nevermind.

Re:It's "Ground-Breaking" or "Trend-Setting" (1)

Neil Hodges (960909) | more than 6 years ago | (#22573474)

"Ground setting" must be an alternative term for the grit on sandpaper.

Re:It's "Ground-Breaking" or "Trend-Setting" (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 6 years ago | (#22573490)

A darned good question. I had over-looked that expression myself partly because I assumed some meaning along the lines of "laying a foundation" or "laying the ground work." But I'm not even sure that makes good sense.

Re:It's "Ground-Breaking" or "Trend-Setting" (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22573902)

WTF is "ground setting?
I find your lack of cromulence disturbing.

Does it matter? (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 6 years ago | (#22573270)

Not only is the cat out of the bag, it's having kittens on the kitchen table.

Re:Does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22573448)

What a stupid post.

It doesn't even make any sense.

Stop posting.

Not stupid - maybe not clear (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 6 years ago | (#22573702)

What the poster means is the ruling has done much more to draw attention to the bank that does money laundering than there would have been if their "law firm" had done nothing.

Re:Does it matter? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 6 years ago | (#22573786)

You fail. Just a bit more thought and you would have had a haiku out of that!

Wikileaks DNS still (partially) operational (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22573770)

$ dig @ns2.everydns.net wikileaks.org

Wikileaks is not shut down. (4, Informative)

mbone (558574) | more than 6 years ago | (#22573934)

Still there at

http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks [88.80.13.160]

Their DNS is, of course, another question.

Amazing News! (1)

STrinity (723872) | more than 6 years ago | (#22574320)

Wow, the EFF and ACLU are supporting a website that's being censored. That's phenomenal! Completely unexpected. No one could've foreseen it.

Ooo, did you hear there's gambling at Ricks?

WikiLeaks is not Accountable (5, Interesting)

Martin Spamer (244245) | more than 6 years ago | (#22574426)

No doubt I'll get modded down for defying the slashmind groupthink but the problem I have with WikiLeaks is their cavalier disregard of accountability [wikipedia.org] .

They have ignored court orders [slashdot.org] . They publish whatever they like and people seem to automatically assume that everything they say is the absolute truth, despite they having no credible track record. WikiLeaks is not a wiki in the true sense, there is no collaboration, the only people allowed to post are their little Cabal [wikipedia.org] . Wikipedia, despite it's problems [wikipedia.org] allows people to challenge its decisions [wikipedia.org] in a publicly accountable way.

I think WikiLeaks are manipulative and deliberately courting controversy [slashdot.org] . Dig beneath the surface and all I see is another self appointed authority with a poor regard for balance.

Re:WikiLeaks is not Accountable (4, Interesting)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22574716)

They have ignored court orders.
I don't think that they have ignored, as much as waited for a serious usage of the law. "Their legal demand to Wikileaks, Northern Rock's well-known media lawyers, Schillings, invoke the DMCA & WIPO, claim it'll be 10 years in prison for Wikileaks operators for not following the UK injunction, but then, incredibly, refuse to hand over a copy of the order unless Wikileaks' London lawyers promise not to give it to Wikileaks. Finally they claim copyright and more -- on their demands!"
That seems more like bullying than sound legal requests.

They publish whatever they like and people seem to automatically assume that everything they say is the absolute truth, despite they having no credible track record.
The purpose of their site is not to be an encyclopedia like wikipedia, rather a muckraking site that allows whistleblowers to expose illegal behavior without worrying about exposed. I realize that there are laws, which seem pretty ineffective to me, which protect whistleblowers and that they can go to press personnel but wikileaks has no obligation to owners that may want to prevent some material surfacing.

I think WikiLeaks are manipulative and deliberately courting controversy. Dig beneath the surface and all I see is another self appointed authority with a poor regard for balance.
While that may be true, that's what gives them the notoriety that they have right now. They offer a haven of yellow-journalism that serves to monitor illegal corporate behavior. If there weren't so much going on, wikileaks wouldn't have so much notoriety now would they?

Re:WikiLeaks is not Accountable (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 6 years ago | (#22577938)

If there weren't so much going on, wikileaks wouldn't have so much notoriety now would they?
But that's just it! If the stories that made it notorious are a result of attention seeking more than they are the result of actual events, then you can't be sure that there is that much corporate funny-business going around. Without accountability, you can't safely believe anything you read.

Re:WikiLeaks is not Accountable (4, Insightful)

sim60 (967365) | more than 6 years ago | (#22574970)

They have ignored court orders. They publish whatever they like and people seem to automatically assume that everything they say is the absolute truth, despite they having no credible track record. WikiLeaks is not a wiki in the true sense, there is no collaboration, the only people allowed to post are their little Cabal. Wikipedia, despite it's problems allows people to challenge its decisions in a publicly accountable way.

I think you've missed the whole point of WikiLeaks.

It's designed to be immune to national court orders, because it's meant to report on abuses by governments and their legal processes.

It's also designed to be unaccountable because it's meant to be immune to pressure on individuals by governments and corporations.

The fact that wikileaks has to go to these lengths to ensure that reporting corruption and abuse is possible is a reflection on the societies we live in, not the organisation itself.

Re:WikiLeaks is not Accountable (1)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | more than 6 years ago | (#22575374)

So, what should be done in response to their poor regard for balance? What would you do today if you were running the world?

Re:WikiLeaks is not Accountable (1)

idiot900 (166952) | more than 6 years ago | (#22575524)

Who cares whether they are manipulative, dishonest, or unaccountable? Let it stay accessible and let the public decide for themselves.

I really dislike Fox News, but even though they are a poor excuse for a news organization, they shouldn't be shut down. We all have the same right to free speech.

Re:WikiLeaks is not Accountable (3, Insightful)

immcintosh (1089551) | more than 6 years ago | (#22576188)

despite they having no credible track record.
I could be wrong, but I believe they have actually broken a number of stories that have subsequently run in credible print news sources.

They have ignored court orders.
Yes. Now your argument as to how this hurts their credibility as an organization that takes as its mission the opposition of governmentally enforced censorship (court orders) among other things? It's called civil disobedience [wikipedia.org] and is often a Very Good Thing. Whether you agree it's a good thing in this case is a valid argument, but just stating "They have ignored court orders," does nothing to convince me of their malice.

They publish whatever they like and people seem to automatically assume that everything they say is the absolute truth
That is no fault of wikileaks. That is the fault of whatever gullible mind is willing to accept as gospel that which they have not independently investigated. If you go to their their site, you'll see they make a point of providing at least some analysis of stories for validity.

I think WikiLeaks are manipulative and deliberately courting controversy.
This is just a link right back to exactly what the article we're posting after is about. It was that bank in the article you link that started the proceedings that got their domain "confiscated," which in turn is now according to this article being fought by the groups mentioned above. In fact, I find it somewhat disingenuous of you to claim what you link here as being "deliberately courting controversy," unless you want to argue that the very act of releasing sensitive information is "manipulative and deliberately courting controversy," in which case I will simply have to disagree strongly with you.

Re:WikiLeaks is not Accountable (1)

xkhaozx (978974) | more than 6 years ago | (#22576198)

WikiLeaks is not a wiki in the true sense, there is no collaboration, the only people allowed to post are their little Cabal [wikipedia.org]
There is no collaboration of the postings of the leaks. However, the collaboration takes place in examining and analyzing the leak itself and its authenticity.

Re:WikiLeaks is not Accountable (1)

moeinvt (851793) | more than 6 years ago | (#22576346)

I won't mod you down, but when you talk about "accountability", "track records" and "balance", you're making an implicit comparison to alternative information sources. I think that you could also make those same arguments with respect to any of the mainstream media outlets.

Think of that media paragon "The New York Times". Their reporters have defied court orders. They seem to publish whatever they want. Their track record is one of misinformation, contradiction and bias, and they are never held accountable for any of it.

Thank $deity for web sites that actually put out real information that hasn't gone through the mainstream media filters. If publishing information is "deliberately courting controversy", more power to them.

What's Scary (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 6 years ago | (#22574452)

What's scary is that any one of how many thousand other judges could have done exactly this same thing.

STOP THE ACLU (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22574464)

10. The ACLU was founded by Communist, with communist ideals, communist goals, and they continue to impose a Communist like agenda on America daily. The founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin stated clearly...

        My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemploymentTherefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itselfI seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.

        ACLU POLICY The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Courts long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individuals right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.ACLU Policy #47

#8. Their outright hatred of the Boyscouts. They are currently doing everything in their power to hurt this organization. They attacked their free speech right to exclude gays, and are threatening schools, and fighting in court to get their charters shut down. The oppose the military supporting them, and will sue the pants off any school that attempts to charter them.

#7. The ACLU are pro-death. Not only is the ACLU Pro-abortion, it's the ACLU's top priority. It most definitely takes a backseat to free speech for the ACLU. As a matter of fact, the ACLU has fought against the free speech rights of those that oppose it. If its abortion or euthanasia, as long as its pro-death you can count on the ACLU to support it. The only exception to the ACLU's pro-death stance, is if it is a convicted criminal; in this case they are against death.

#6. The ACLU advocate open borders. Not only have the ACLU opposed the Minute Men, a group who are simply exercizing their freedom of speech, protesting and stepping up where the government is failing, but they have helped illegals cross the border.
#5. The ACLU is anti-Christian. The list is endless on this one. Under the guise of "seperation of Church and State", the ACLU have made a name for theirself on being rabidly anti-Christian. This is one area where they are most hypocritical. They oppose tax exemptions for all churches, but fight for them for Wiccans. They are against Christianity in school, but oddly remain silent as our children are taught to be Muslims. Whether its baby Jesus, ten commandments, or tiny crosses on county seals, the ACLU will be there to secularize America, and rewrite our history.

#4. The ACLU Opposes National Security. The ACLU have opposed almost every effort in the arena of national security. From the bird flu to bag searches, the ACLU have been against it. No matter what kind of search someone tries to do to protect people, the ACLU have proved they are against them across the board. Its kind of ironic that they don't practice the principles they preach.

        Take a walk into the NYCLUs Manhattan headquarters - which it shares with other organizations - and youll find a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search.

#3. The ACLU Defend the enemy. They have a long history of this one. They defended the P.L.O. in 1985. They defended Quadafi in the 1980's. And they continue today. They have told Gitmo detainees they have the right to remain silent, as in not talking to interrogators. One issue that really disturbs me is their refusal of funds from organizations such as the United Way that were concerned the money would be used to support terrorism.

        In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from two of its most generous and loyal contributors, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, saying new anti-terrorism restrictions demanded by the institutions make it unable to accept their funds.

        The Ford Foundation now bars recipients of its funds from engaging in any activity that promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state.

        The Rockefeller Foundations provisions state that recipients of its funds may not directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity.

#2. The ACLU supports child porn distribution and child molesters like NAMBLA.

        As legislative counsel for the ACLU in 1985, Barry Lynn told the U.S. Attorney Generals Commission on Pornography (of which Focus on the Family President Dr. James C. Dobson was a member) that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be.

There is no doubt the The ACLU are perverting the Constitution.
#1. The ACLU fufills its agenda using my tax money. What more can I say on this one?

Re:STOP THE ACLU (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 6 years ago | (#22575730)

The ironic thing is that the ACLU would go to the mat defending your right to say all of this. (Just look at your own #3.)

Can't these places take more assertive action? (2, Interesting)

Xest (935314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22574636)

Why don't universities and so forth point wikileaks.org to a live Wikileaks IP address rather than the one site the judge shut down effectively bypassing the judges wishes?

Whilst many DNS providers may not follow suit, even if some did it would prove a point that a) he shouldn't have the power to shut down a site of international interest because America doesn't own the internet and b) that even if he does it's futile.

Re:Can't these places take more assertive action? (3, Informative)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 6 years ago | (#22575076)

1.) No site was shut down. The IP address that is quoted so often is the same server as the one wikileaks.org pointed to.

2.) If any DNS provider wanted to point wikileaks.org at its actual IP address rather than behaving like a good DNS and pointing it where its registrar says it should point, they could (I'm a bit shaky on the technical aspects, but this is after all how pharming works, so it's possible).

3.) I am principally opposed to hijacking domain names like this, and so should everyone who cares about a reliable internet. If we can't trust DNS servers to return the proper zone records, we are in very deep crap, technologically. This is just short of what Pakistan did with Youtube, and of cutting deep-sea cables - Don't Mess With The Internet. I know the centrally regulated names and numbers thing has its drawbacks at times, but it beats all-out anarchy.

Re:Can't these places take more assertive action? (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 6 years ago | (#22575110)

Note regarding 2: Of course, such a hijacking would affect only the people using the DNS server in question for look-up. If some university dorm messed with the domain for its local users, that has relatively little impact. The problem results when a DNS server does this that is further upstream and is relied on by other servers.

Re:Can't these places take more assertive action? (0, Troll)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 6 years ago | (#22575604)

Because Wikileaks isn't a legitimate source of news, it's a bunch of asshats with an agenda who think that free speech includes libel and slander.

It is not open, it is not accountable, it's just a 3rd rate web-enabled tabloid.

Re:Can't these places take more assertive action? (2, Funny)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 6 years ago | (#22575802)

"Wikileaks isn't a legitimate source of news, it's a bunch of asshats with an agenda who think that free speech includes libel and slander."

Since when did Wikileaks become talk radio?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...