The New York Times posted classified government information a while back -- "Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials."
Do you think their hosting facility should drop them?
The NYT did publish it, but one guesses they did it when the government agency(s) in question permitted them to. Or after someone else broke the story, and NYT would look stupid for not covering it.
"The NYT did publish it, but one guesses they did it when the government agency(s) in question permitted them to."
No, not at all.
The difference here though is breaking a story of huge interest to every citizen versus merely making public previously private and confidential communication between diplomats, indiscriminately.
Maybe you are right, but the point is whether Amazon (or any other hosting company) should act as a judge and decide whether the leak was justified or not.
No, they're acting as a property owner saying "get this shit off my lawn, we didn't ask for you to have your fight here".
Once again, the freedom of speech does not give you the right to abuse other people's freedom to control their own property. Amazon's servers are their property, why do they have to let their brand image go down in the mind of people who are anti-Wikileaks?
Comments
The New York Times posted classified government information a while back -- "Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials."
Do you think their hosting facility should drop them?
You mean this story: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html
It ran Dec 16, 2005. Apparently, "Late October 2004: Top Administration officials convince NYT to spike the NSA domestic spying story." from http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/timeline-collection/warran...
The NYT did publish it, but one guesses they did it when the government agency(s) in question permitted them to. Or after someone else broke the story, and NYT would look stupid for not covering it.
"The NYT did publish it, but one guesses they did it when the government agency(s) in question permitted them to."
No, not at all.
The difference here though is breaking a story of huge interest to every citizen versus merely making public previously private and confidential communication between diplomats, indiscriminately.
Maybe you are right, but the point is whether Amazon (or any other hosting company) should act as a judge and decide whether the leak was justified or not.
No, they're acting as a property owner saying "get this shit off my lawn, we didn't ask for you to have your fight here".
Once again, the freedom of speech does not give you the right to abuse other people's freedom to control their own property. Amazon's servers are their property, why do they have to let their brand image go down in the mind of people who are anti-Wikileaks?