> My opinion of Amazon is improved. The position they're taking is unpopular with the nerd crowd.
"Nerd crowd"? This is clearly a free speech issue, with implications for EVERYONE.
Amazon ostensibly doesn't trample free speech rights here because they are a non-government entity, but they had the option of standing UP for the First Amendment.
That would have been something. Not doing so... just makes them another large corporation.
Who even needs prior restraint when the government can lean on you behind the scenes? That's a chilling effect right there.
As for harm reduction, if transparency were taken up a few notches back in 2001-2002, it might have made it impossible to lie the populace into supporting the Iraq War.
I can't fault Amazon for not wanting to get on the bad side of the government, but I think that ignores the larger issue -- nobody should have to worry about hosting any documents with a legitimate free speech claim, sans a court order to remove them.
I find it extremely unlikely that Amazon was NOT responding to government pressure, but let's consider that possibility: In that case, Amazon is, of its own volition, deciding it has a pro-government-censorship position, even when the government hasn't tried to do so! They are taking a political stance against material that has a compelling claim to First Amendment protections.
The only pending legal case is against the alleged original leaker, not any of the publishers.
Every major U.S. media outlet has published at least parts of the documents. ALL of which are classified -- the information is classified, not just the verbatim reproduction.
Sorry. Not a Wikileaks fan. Been through the reasons why before on HN. Don't blame other people for liking Wikileaks. Have lots of friends who do. Simply don't believe it's a free speech issue with implications for everyone.
All I can say is, the vehemence of the tech crowd's response to WL is entirely predictable. It's an underdog story, tech vs. the establishment, &c &c. Amazon could have extricated themselves from this situation without putting a stake in the ground. I respect them for making a principled decision. I share the principle, but I hope I'd feel the same if I didn't. >shrug<
For me it's not an underdog issue. Although on a purely humanistic level I can't but admire him.
Assange could have done anything with his life. Clearly he is an extraordinarily intelligent person with an ability to execute, and a belief that the general populace is being shepherded in our thinking.
I don't have a problem with that belief, nor do I have a problem with Julian putting everything on the line in an attempt to demonstrate, or at very least, test his belief.
After all, the actual leak absolutely does not constitute a breach of national security. ONLY BECAUSE, if someone is prepared to deliver wikileaks the wholesale database, can you just imagine how many less scrupulous, security cleared people (remember there are 3 million of them), are profiteering from the very same data?
"Nerd crowd"? This is clearly a free speech issue, with implications for EVERYONE.
Amazon ostensibly doesn't trample free speech rights here because they are a non-government entity, but they had the option of standing UP for the First Amendment.
That would have been something. Not doing so... just makes them another large corporation.
Who even needs prior restraint when the government can lean on you behind the scenes? That's a chilling effect right there.
As for harm reduction, if transparency were taken up a few notches back in 2001-2002, it might have made it impossible to lie the populace into supporting the Iraq War.
I can't fault Amazon for not wanting to get on the bad side of the government, but I think that ignores the larger issue -- nobody should have to worry about hosting any documents with a legitimate free speech claim, sans a court order to remove them.
I find it extremely unlikely that Amazon was NOT responding to government pressure, but let's consider that possibility: In that case, Amazon is, of its own volition, deciding it has a pro-government-censorship position, even when the government hasn't tried to do so! They are taking a political stance against material that has a compelling claim to First Amendment protections.
The only pending legal case is against the alleged original leaker, not any of the publishers.
Every major U.S. media outlet has published at least parts of the documents. ALL of which are classified -- the information is classified, not just the verbatim reproduction.