digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Heavy legal guns ask judge to reverse Wikileaks shutdown

arstechnica.com — A collection of public interest groups has attempted to intervene in the Wikileaks case, arguing that the judge's order that removed the site's DNS entry was overly broad, and erred on both jurisdictional and constitutional grounds.

Who dugg this? Made popular Feb 28, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

43 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • prompel, on 02/28/2008, -3/+42There's still a Constitution in the US? You could have fooled me!
  • jwrichards, on 02/28/2008, -0/+17You can find more information about the Constitutional and jurisdictional issues in this lawsuit at http://www.thelegality.com/archives/28
  • RealmDown, on 02/28/2008, -1/+14It's in danger, but it is there. Turn off American Idol and help do something about it.
  • thomoore, on 02/28/2008, -7/+20This is the sort of heavy-handed censorship which the Constitution was designed to prevent. We will keep our free press ONLY if we smack the idiot judge who ruled against wikileaks. Tyrants know the power of information; tyrants know that having people make their own news and spread it via the internet is bad for them. http://www.scragged.com/articles/disrupting-tyrant ... goes into some of the issues involved in letting kids have cheap lap tops with cameras in them - tyrants don't like that either.
  • zcreem, on 02/28/2008, -0/+11Remove the DNS record, are they mad, just google them front page http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Main_Page


    Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right. — Martin Luther King, Jr.
  • RealmDown, on 02/28/2008, -0/+11This site needs to be protected so others will follow. The more we have of these, the better we will be.
  • aimhelix, on 02/28/2008, -0/+10Good! The public should know about this and support Wikileaks type of websites. Corporations, Banks, and goverment arms have been getting away with shady practices that ultimately screws the hard-working, middle to lower class citizens. At least a site like this will help keep them in check.... Anyways, even if the site does go down, I'm pretty sure a clone will just show up and no matter how companies try to hide bad PR, it will always find a way for it to snake through the internet. Power to the people.
  • bsdboy, on 02/28/2008, -0/+9Since when did judges start running DNS servers?
  • bsonline, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5Yep, that was it. ***** leaks. I'm sick and mother ***** tired of these ***** leaks on this mother ***** plane.
  • RealmDown, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5Maybe we should start lobbying for their own TLD -- .ass

  • SuperCow1127, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4Wow, you really do take the flimsiest pretenses to link your site. Everyone should check out your comment history.
  • RealmDown, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4No, you're thinking of the movie sequel, "Leaks on a Plane"
  • jeremyduffy, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3If we had better protections for whistleblowers, maybe they wouldn't be tempted to leak information instead. If we had better trust that something would actually be DONE when a whistleblower came forward, maybe we wouldn't need leaks. Maybe if whistleblowers didn't have to fear for their personal livlihood and retribution at work when they came forward, maybe more would. As it stands, go Wikileaks!
  • tHePeOPle, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3Wikileaks is like ObiWan. They struck it down, but it became more powerful than they could possibly imagine. I'm almost thankful for the ignorant judge who tried to shut the site down. If not for that, I wouldn't know about it right now.
  • Grimdotdotdot, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3Hahahahahahaha!
    You what?
  • Tenoq, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2"She's also got her entire identity wrapped up in some asinine hair and makeup." - sounds like a pop-star to me.
  • SuperCow1127, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2Who told this judge what DNS was in the first place? I think that's where the problem starts...
  • GreyICE, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2Check out his digg history. Pure site spammer.
    http://digg.com/users/thomoore

    Now go away and stop posting on alts, Thomoore.
  • nbcaffeine, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1whats wrong with the bride of Frankenstein?
  • Nougat, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1She's a jaw singer, like Eddie Vedder. You can do it too; stick your lower jaw out, so you have a little bit of an underbite, then sing. She's also got her entire identity wrapped up in some asinine hair and makeup.
  • GreyICE, on 02/28/2008, -3/+4Stop spamming your stupid site, spammer.
  • RealmDown, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Here I disagree. We need more informed judges, who can make the proper decisions. It may hurt some in the short run, but better overall.
  • isaactwito, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3Wikileaks must always live on. We can't keep submitting to this mutilated government.
  • Nougat, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3I *am* already getting tired of that really flaming dude, and the motorcycle chick with the weird hair.
  • inactive, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2When Anon steps in, they'll regret.
  • inactive, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1This judges actions only highlighted his system's growing irrelevance and the futility of trying to suppress free speech.
  • SuperCow1127, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1We actually agree. My point is that removing the DNS entry is the sort of half baked decision one makes when they only know enough to be dangerous. A better ruling would have been "disable the site," at which point, the more technically inclined would pull the plug on the server.
  • PHiZ187, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1All of the documents filed in this case: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-candce/case ...
  • Yage2006, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1I think a judge with such poor knowledge of law and the constitution should be disbarred.
    He is either incompetent or there is something very crooked going on.
  • supreme0armor, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1okay... deal... I will turn off the American Idol, but I am NOT turning off American Gladiators!!!

    /s

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOPu_wU6hs
  • manitoba98xp, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1My understanding was that Julius Baer requested the injunction (with those specifics in it), and the judge just approved it.
  • ivandir, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Smack that judge right in his face. What a corporate whore.
  • rxbudian, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Maybe the Judge is a customer of the Bank and don't want his name be exposed... if not, I start to wonder what kind of standards the government has in appointing such an ignorant judge.
  • lolo2007, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0
    If we had better protections for whistleblowers, maybe they wouldn't be tempted to leak information instead. If we had better trust that something would actually be DONE when a whistleblower came forward, maybe we wouldn't need leaks. Maybe if whistleblowers didn't have to fear for their personal livlihood and retribution at work when they came forward, maybe more would. As it stands, go Wikileaks!

    http://ladies.paramegsoft.com/
    http://game.paramegsoft.com/
    http://girls.paramegsoft.com/
    http://www.paramegsoft.com/
  • kamisamaji, on 02/28/2008, -3/+3Okay firstly, you don't even know that's his site. Secondly, shut the ***** up. If it makes a valid point why should it matter that he wrote it? If he doesn't paste what he wrote into the digg comment box does that make it somehow less valid?
    Jesus Christ, I wish people would stop yelling spammer every time someone posts a link.
  • TommyBoy919, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1This jude is a disgrace to the bench.
  • Herostratus, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1Oh this is beautiful. I couldn't beleive it when they shut down wikileaks. I was thinking to myself, this is it, the beginning of the end. But now I see light at the end of the tunnel.
  • QuickeningYak, on 02/28/2008, -3/+2I'm confident we'll be getting it back relatively soon....
  • kamisamaji, on 02/28/2008, -1/+0Okay firstly, I guess you did know that was his site: my bad :)
    Secondly, I still think if he's making a valid point you shouldn't call it spam, although he has been pushing it a little.
    Lastly, I take back the STFU; I hadn't checked out his comment history.
    p.s. i'm really not an alt :)
  • cap11235, on 02/28/2008, -2/+1Where's the ACLU?
  • bsonline, on 02/28/2008, -6/+3I always thought Wikileaks was an instructional site dedicated to writing your name in the snow and other such snake drainage techniques.

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...

© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.