"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 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?