Washington's move to shut down WikiLeaks...backfires!

[DadaOrwell2]

From Ridley Report.com

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

The Barbara Streisand Effect goes into full swing as Fed ruling turns obscure whistleblower site into overnight sensation. Thought this might amuse you Volcans.

[Jack]

WikiLeaks.org is back. In a blow to Bank Julius Baer, Judge White has now denied the bank's request to silence WikiLeaks. Judge White also denied the bank's request to require that WikiLeaks remove the bank documents that had been reveal by Wikileaks to draw attention to alleged tax evasion and money laundering in the Cayman Islands. In his order, Judge White backpedaled on his earlier rulings, now having realized that those rulings trampled the First Amendment. The First Amendment was further represented by all of those entities that filed amicus briefs, including the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press and eleven other media organizations, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Citizen, the California First Amendment Coalition and the Project on Government Oversight. We give thanks to these extraordinary efforts. Louis Brandeis, one of the greatest Justices to ever sit on the United States Supreme Court, wrote that: "Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." (Other People's Money, and How the Bankers Use It, 1933). Those words ring even truer today. WikiLeaks will not be cowed by those who would silence the truth. It shall continue to be a forum for the citizens of the world to disclose issues of social, moral and ethical concern.

Wikileaks victorious over Bank Julius Baer - Wikileaks

Despite the occasional (and usually temporary) setback, it's reassuring to see our system does work and our Constitution is well understood by many within and outside the court system.

[Jack]

Another voice, from Dave Farber's mailing list:

The end of the story forwarded below indicated that wikileaks was not online, and that it remained unclear whether that particular name would start functioning again. Wikileaks.org IS functioning again. The reason it did not function immediately after the judge's oral ruling is that the domain name was shuttered by a written injunction, and upon a request for clarification from the lawyer for the domain name registrar (Dynadot), the judge said that nothing should change until there was a written order vacating the injunction. FWIW, Wikileaks now includes the first installment of an analysis by Rudolph Elmer -- the leaker -- of what he thinks the leaked documents show. Bank Julius Baer: Grand Larceny via Grand Cayman - Wikileaks. A few observations from one of the many who were involved in the effort to get Judge White’s injunctions rescinded. First of all, it is not possible to understate the impact of the tremendous outpouring of public disapproval that followed the so-called "permanent injunction" issued pursuant to an agreement between Dynadot on this outcome. Judges DO read the newspapers (and other media outlets). At the outset of the hearing, and throughout the hearing, it was clear that the judge was responding in part to the public criticism of what he had done and to what he felt were public misperceptions of how he had come to sign the orders that he signed. Indications of this concern also appear in his brief written opinion. The judge was extremely defensive at the beginning of the hearing, although as the hearing went on he seemed to relax somewhat, perhaps because he was formulating his decision and was comfortable with what he was getting ready to do. For example, early in the hearing many of those in attendance reacted with laughter to something that was said by one of the lawyers, and the judge reacted sharply, saying that he would not tolerate such outbursts. Later in the hearing, there was more laughter and the judge did not seem to mind (on one such occasion it was the audience laughing at a joke by the judge, which I guess is always acceptable even in the strictest courtroom, but that was not the only time). Second, there was a terrific effort of the lawyers who argued the case (and others who only collaborated on the briefs). I was honored to be a part of this effort. There were three different briefs partly because the short time allowed did not permit enough negotiation to put everything into one brief, partly because of a fifteen page limit that can be lifted but only with the judge’s consent, partly because everybody could not agree which issues should be addressed and whether to just be a friend of the court or intervene as a party defendant in the case, and maybe also partly for institutional reasons. Argument was presented by five different lawyers who were on the briefs – Thomas Burke for the media amicus coalition, Ann Brick, Kurt Opsahl and Steve Mayer for the EFF/ACLU intervenors, and me for the Public Citizen intervenors. (I’ll say more about Dynadot’s lawyer in a moment). The judge framed the marathon four-hour argument by issuing a series of questions to be addressed, and this group coordinated in advance who would take the lead role in responding to the various questions, although in practice there were often multiple lawyers from the free speech side. Although the case was so complicated that each of us felt free to follow up on each other as things were said by the judge (and the plaintiffs’ lawyers), and the discussion moved around, I give the judge great credit for managing a difficult session. In addition, Roger Myers and Joshua Kolton also made important contributions to the argument on behalf of their individual clients (the registrant of the wikileaks.org domain name, and a Wikileaks writer who lives in California), both addressing some of the specific questions as well as bringing home for the judge the personal impact of his orders on their individual clients. We at Public Citizen tend not to be fans of litigation by committee, but this collaboration worked well. Finally, a special tribute is owed to Peter Scheer of the California First Amendment Coalition for his persistence both in publicizing the outrage and in recruiting lawyers to help with the response. I have commented elsewhere on the disgraceful behavior Dynadot in just rolling over and agreeing to the permanent injunction. CL&P Blog: Be Careful in Choosing Internet Providers -- Will They Defend Your Privacy?. Dynadot’s lawyer, having been directed by the judge to attend the hearing, claimed that the company hadn’t really agreed to the injunction shutting down the web site. The judge was none to pleased with this effort to back out, and reminded Dynadot that it got a package deal – it got out of the case in return for the injunction. Two questions said it all – Did you not read the injunction before it was submitted with your stipulated agreement? Did you ever say you were opposed to the injunction? Dynadot did not oppose the injunction at the hearing, although it answered the judge’s questions by asserting its immunity under section 230. Hopefully, however, Dynadot will be getting pro bono representation from lawyers who are ready to defend it forcefully going forward. In fact, I’d be surprised if Dynadot does not file an anti-SLAPP motion if the Bank does not dismiss the case promptly. Paul Alan Levy Public Citizen Litigation Group 1600 - 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009