A federal judge in San Francisco has shut down Wikileaks.org because of posting some documents from Julius Baer Bank and Trust of the Cayman Islands. A Chicago Tribune editorial likens shutting down the whole site for one article (that may or may not be illegal) to shutting down the Tribune or the NY Times for printing something that could be illegally damaging to others. Has the judge forgotten about the 1st Amendment? Obviously there is a different standard, to this judge, for print material than there is for electronic material. I suspect we haven't seen the end of this. (I hope anyway.)
When I first read this story last week, it infuriated me. Imagine if they shut down Wordcraft because of one thread which was inflammatory, it's ridiculous.
Yes, Sean, it would be quite similar. Likewise, a judge could shut down the NY Times because of jumping to conclusions with their recent report on McCain's womanizing.
z, sorry that I didn't link to your mention of this in a previous thread. I just thought a discussion of electronic censorship would be interesting.
