digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at thelegality.com

Internets to judge: you suck at the Constitution.

thelegality.com — Wikileaks may very well be unstoppable. That didn't prevent a federal judge from vastly overstepping his authority while attempting the impossible. This article offers a description of some of the Constitutional issues presented in the lawsuit.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jwrichards, on 02/28/2008, -1/+78It's amazing to me that the judge didn't consider the many implications of his action before ordering the site scrubbed from Dynadot. Judges don't like being overruled, and this suit against the ISP seems destined to fare badly at trial, much less on appeal, even without the Constitutional implications. Not to mention that he's trying to do the impossible in taking the documents offline. Maybe he really does think he's God.
    • LegalSatire, on 02/28/2008, -1/+12Comment hijacking for mirrors:

      http://duggmirror.com
      http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:qGYwSK3UpZcJ: ...
    • hurdboy, on 02/28/2008, -8/+2The judge is taking the only remedy available to him -- because the libelous actors are being protected by the proxy of the ISP, there is only one known party on which the court may act. If the court knows that Joe Smith is responsible, it can order Joe Smith to remove the content, and nobody would have an ounce of a constitutional problem with that.

      Is it possible technically? Not really, but that's beside the point. The court's only remedy is what the judge exercised. And it's absolutely not censorship; if the party responsible for the speach wishes to continue it, he/she must respond to the plaintiff's claim. And to do that, he/she would have to surrender his/her anonymous status.
      • digitalhair, on 02/28/2008, -0/+9WTF are you talking about you complete idiot?
      • cryptoki, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4wrong.. he could have ordered the ISP to remove the offending page only. Would or Could a judge shut down lets say, The new york times?
    • digitalhair, on 02/28/2008, -1/+6Bush #43 appointed this judge. We can't accept that these guys simply don't care about how things look. They know the justice department has hijacked by their own operatives and is now officially the same branch as the executive. Mukasey has a picture of George Orwell hanging in his office according to Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2 ... !!!), which is a testament to just how little these guys give a ***** about what the public thinks. After finally agreeing that Bush's wiretapping and torture programs are constitutionally illegal, Mukasey has the gall to tell the press he won't enforce the ruling, which is God Damn infuriating if you ask me - especially after having spent so much time watching them debate the issues in congress. So tell me chaps, how do we go about enforcing the laws ourselves??? I'm starting to experience a little bit of vertigo, at this point.
  • LegalSatire, on 02/28/2008, -0/+13Anyone know where you can access this now?
  • OBDriftwood, on 02/28/2008, -47/+14Activist judge? Check
    From California? Check
    Raping the Constitution? Check
    That's the socialist trifecta!
    • Lyk4n, on 02/28/2008, -5/+41Fascism != Socialism
      • RealmDown, on 02/28/2008, -9/+11But it can be a good mimic when it tries.
      • oldhick, on 02/28/2008, -15/+5You don't even know what fascism means. That word is played out on Digg. The word is so meaningless now on Digg that you can use it to describe anything you disagree with.
        • starkruzr, on 02/28/2008, -3/+14Fascist.
        • brufleth, on 02/28/2008, -2/+10Telling a web site to be removed from the internet is not socialist. It isn't really even in the same genre as socialism (economic system vs political system).

          I think YOU need to go do a "define: fascism" in Google. You might actually learn something. Suppressing opposition and putting state control over personal freedoms is fascist, not socialist.
          • oldhick, on 02/28/2008, -7/+3Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) - show me the "mass movement". Simply being authoritarian and repressive doesn't equal fascism.
        • oldhick, on 02/28/2008, -5/+1Hold up peoples... I never said it was socialist either. Its simply douchebagish. I know exactly what fascism means, its you guys I'm worried about.
      • dudeguy1234, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4Epic FAIL. They are completely different.
    • FredFredrickson, on 02/28/2008, -5/+25What in the hell is socialist about this story? It's just one stupid judge who made one stupid decision. Get the ***** over yourself.
      • Antwan718, on 02/28/2008, -7/+4Thats awesome, now that you have made your point against free speech please resuming to watch Fox News. Don't you get it, if one dumb judge tries to do this then it will give corporations the leverage they need.
        • dudeguy1234, on 02/28/2008, -3/+5fail
          • bjornski, on 02/28/2008, -2/+1No, he's right.

            If this case stands up in court, we'll see a FLOOD of shut-down notices being posted, by various entities who want to see someone who is saying something bad about them shut down.
          • FredFredrickson, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5You might... but then, you 'll see other judges come to their own conclusions, and not always take the route of precedence. Regardless though, it has nothing to do with socialism, a concept I get the feeling that many Digg users have no understanding of.
    • Ell3, on 02/28/2008, -28/+4Welcome to the world liberals have created.
      • digitalhair, on 02/28/2008, -1/+13notice this new idea coming out of the woods about "liberal fascism" after a jew named Jonah Goldberg wrote a book about it. Suddenly there's this ridiculous revelation that the white house has really been taken over by liberals even though Bush ran on the conservative platform, was supported by the votes of conservatives, is a corporate conservative's wet dream, and appointed the judge that this article is referring to. And we're supposed to believe that the illegal invasion of Iraq was instigated by liberals??? Stop spewing this garbage because it makes you look utterly stupid even though you're just being intellectually dishonest for political purposes.
      • shmatt, on 02/28/2008, -0/+11RTFA the judge was a bush appointee.
      • bjornski, on 02/28/2008, -0/+10Are you seriously that stupid?

        This isn't a liberal move, it's a corporatist one. A hard-right wing stance.

        A liberal would demand that the banks open their records for scrutiny.
    • kipmartin, on 02/28/2008, -1/+18this judge was appointed by a republican. California is leaning very slightly to the right of the rest of the country (source: American Heritage Foundation, 2006--a conservative think tank). raping the Constitution? the Constitution isnt going to get changed or harmed in any way because of this judge. he isnt able to change or 'rape' the Constitution. its his interpretation which is being called into question. and finally, socialism is an economic system, not a political system. socialism can exist in a democracy, or in a tyranny. it is simply how a government choses to manages its finances. activist state judges, the states themselves, and the Constitution itself remains neutral in national economics and financial questions--they do not address issues of national economy. had you said the judge was a moron, totally pushing an agenda, or just not a good adjudicator based on his misinterpretation of the law, i might have agreed with you. instead, you chose to argue via ad hominum attack and with complete ignorance of the definitions of 8 out of 14 words in your post.
      • oldhick, on 02/28/2008, -7/+10California does not lean to the right regardless of what the American Heritage Foundation says. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (in CA) leans as far left as humanly possible.
        • SuckMyDigg, on 02/28/2008, -11/+1Without falling over or having to take a step? Just how does a court lean in a humanly way? ***** foundation?
        • brufleth, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2PARTS of California lean to the left but this judge was appointed by a republican. You also might notice that the state is governed by a republican.
      • lajaw, on 02/28/2008, -12/+2Socialism today is not all "economic". A socialist is one who will install rule by the workers of everyone else. Or rather rule by politicians, bureaucrats, and technocrats in their name. Socialists want equality of results rather than equality of rights. They want to and will be the new privileged elite.
        • digitalhair, on 02/28/2008, -1/+7why is everyone talking about socialism communism etcetera??? don't let these trolls suck you into this void of organizational despair that is socialism capitalism blah blah blah. This discussion is about America and its Constitution and how there is an evil idealogical movement that secretively wants to undermine the power of Constitutional self-government in order to roll back the progressive changes of the 21st century so it can reinstate the authority of the rich over the poor.
          • bjornski, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2"Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority" -James Madison
      • Mahstah, on 02/28/2008, -11/+3Code Pink. Berkley. Marine recruiting center. Typical California liberals.
        • bjornski, on 02/28/2008, -1/+6Go back to FreeRepublic and get some talking points that actually have something to do with the topic.
  • usrlocalbin, on 02/28/2008, -1/+89Until these old judges either retire or die off, this ***** is going to continue to happen.
    When they view this stuff as a 'series of tubes' and have nooo clue at all about any of this, this is going to happen.
    Internet related things really needs its own courts. We have criminal court, family court, etc. We really need some sort of court for internet/IT related topics. With judges and lawyers who specialize in this area and actually know what they are doing.
    • Zipko, on 02/28/2008, -0/+21The idea of specialized judges to deal with new technology is really what we need. Even when today's slate of judges retire the new judges this generation creates will have the same problems dealing with next generation technologies. It's just an inherent problem with the experience required to reach such a high position. By the time someone becomes a federal judge they're already considered old by technology's standard.

      Having 'old' judges who are trained in new technologies and specialize in these cases is what will help prevent some of these mistakes.
      • Antwan718, on 02/28/2008, -2/+5You cant teach an old dog new tricks, because he is too dam pompous to admit he dosen't know everything. What is needed is a total breakdown of the system and it needs to be remade. My most prime example of this, federal judges are appointed by the president, the judges need to be voted on by the people, no one should have anything HANDED to them when they will be assuming the partial responsibility of how the rest of the nation deals with their actions.
        • Zipko, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2Federal judges do get voted on. The appointments have to pass congress, although recess apointments are BS but that's another topic.

          Even if you ignored the logistical nightmare of having to vote for judicial vacancies at the populous level, you'd still have the same problem. The ones who win the elections would (in a perfect world) be the ones most qualified for the position. At the federal level you would want the MOST qualified person possible and that can only come with experience [read:being old]. So you've still got some 50-60 year old judge coming in who doesn't understand cutting edge technology.
      • familynight, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3another option, with its own laundry list of legal problems, is to utilize a euro-style system and use neutral experts selected by the court. stupid adversarial system of justice.
    • redxxx, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5While we are at it, some sort of legislation preventing the East District of Texas from hearing IP and technology cases?
      It is retarded that a backwater full of ignorant rednecks should effectively dictate so much law they know nothing about.
    • heystoopid, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1Alas the man was appointed to the bench in 2002 by one one GW Bush considering his past history involved a lot of teaching of legal theory and court presentation to upcoming law students , it is a truly strange and somewhat irrational decision but it also confirms his odd decision in 2006 in another case involving abuse of the constitution too !

      So let the Streisand effect continue forthwith !
  • TheLastFreeMan, on 02/28/2008, -0/+92Hmm this wikileaks looks interesting. Thank god for people who try to censor ***** otherwise I'd never find out about half this stuff.
    • roho76, on 02/28/2008, -10/+4Tru Dat. Tru Dat.
    • peaceninja, on 02/28/2008, -0/+17i believe its called the barbara streisand effect
    • SSUK, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5I agree. Never knew of this site until they tried to close it down. For a site which probably is just a regular hit for conspiracy theorists and geeks who already have a jaded perception of the world, they sure look suspicious for trying to censor the site.
    • carpespasm, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4the forbidden fruit is always sweetest.
  • StiGUP, on 02/28/2008, -0/+7It seems judges will try and hand a death sentence out to anyone....or anything?
  • EricDrawback, on 02/28/2008, -9/+50Due to constant "States of Emergency", the U.S. Constitution has been effectively suspended since March 9th, 1933. Over the last 75 years we have been spoon fed the idea that the Constitution is archaic, and can't be applied to the ever changing world around us. It is nothing but lies, manipulation, and scare mongering to concentrate power back into the hands of the privileged few.
    • AlKo, on 02/28/2008, -1/+17And people continue to agree with and openly support the scare-mongering, even supposedly educated and rational people.
      • roho76, on 02/28/2008, -4/+8Are they educated and rational because they have a degree from Harvard or Yale. La tee dah.
        Book learnens and Common Sense are two totally different things.
        The Constitution is Commons sense thats why 90% of the country are too stupid to understand that. That is why we have citizens that will buy the latest thing for a lot of money with a credit card that they cannot pay because they don't have a job and then wonder why they can't get ahead in life.
        It's the game where the mouse touches the food then gets shocked then touches the food again. Only the mouse usually learns after the first or second time.
        • Thuktun, on 02/28/2008, -1/+7"The Constitution is Commons sense thats why 90% of the country are too stupid to understand that."

          What an amazing observation.
    • SaMdeR, on 02/28/2008, -11/+4you're an idiot. Rofl, the constitution has suspended since 1933? LOL. Dumb Alex Jones sap. you're a retard, seriously.
      • SaMdeR, on 02/28/2008, -8/+2You guys say you're being brainwashed by washington. No, quite the opposite. Alex Jones is brainwashing all of you into schizophrenic idiots. Alex Jones' research sucks, and once you go to college and actually LEARN constitutional law and all the terminology behind it, you realize the ***** conspiracy theorists spew out is nothing but fear-mongering. Listening to Alex Jones/conspiracy theorists is NOT education or is educating you.
        • digitalhair, on 02/28/2008, -2/+5did you LEARN constitutional law and all the terminology behind it in college? Is that where you got your self-deprecating humility? I guarantee you that the guy sitting beside you in class got better grades.
          • digitalhair, on 02/28/2008, -1/+6AND, you replied to your own comment, which really wasn't even necessary. See how silly this looks???
          • brainboy77, on 02/28/2008, -4/+1who is alex jones exactly and should i care? is he a comspiracy theorist about stuff other than 9/11? if he is, then he is waaaaay too paranoid and should get laid.
    • SSUK, on 02/28/2008, -2/+1But then the constitution is much like human rights regulations, they're bent and twisted by individuals in frivolous circumstances and undermines it's validity when people use human rights claims legitimately.
      In the UK you can't help but hear about these arses who say the smoking ban somehow infringes their human rights. ***** the fact you want to kill yourself and others around you, there's much worse atrocities happening in this world RIGHT NOW, which are and always will be much bigger than the fact you can't smoke down the local pub you thick *****.
      • pw378, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2If you can't defend the simple rights, you will never solve the hard ones. Individual rights are the first casualty in the path to a loss of freedom.
    • EricDrawback, on 02/28/2008, -0/+6Well, my focus on college was Constitutional law, and although I did not end up following through and going into a graduate program, I feel like I know enough to comment on the situation.

      There are several parts of the Constitution (not to mention most of the original intent) that has been thrown completely out the window over the last 75 years. Gold and Silver are not legal tender, private good is now interpreted as corporate good (according to a 2006 Supreme Court decision on eminent domain), the Executive branch has usurped Congress' role in foreign policy (declaring war), etc. The bottom line is, the excuse of a "national emergency" has been used time and again to subvert the Constitution and it's original intent.

      Samder -Throwing around Alex Jones' name, and trying to put all Constitutionalists in the tinfoil hat camp is not a valid rebuttal.
    • moxley, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3BRAVO! Awesome post.

      Most people don;t even notice this. The "NAtional Constitution Center" in Philadelphia is a disgrace, because they don't do ***** that I am aware of to fight for the constitution. They have shows there are baseball and ***** "First Ladies" - at this time when the constitution is being treated like a toilet paper joke. DISGUSTING AND SHAMEFUL.
  • lukeydukey, on 02/28/2008, -1/+11So Anonymous, you now have a secondary backup for "dox". use it. =)
  • olenick, on 02/28/2008, -0/+10Oh EFF, do I hear an emergency intervenor motion and appeal, w/ standing based upon the chilling effect this will have on other clients? Better yet, one of the wikileaks.org people can ink a retainer.
  • jcounterman, on 02/28/2008, -1/+30The judge made a bad distinction here. It is perfectly ok and legal for employees to leak documents that show illegal activity by their employer. It is ILLEGAL for individuals to steal and post trade secrets of their employers.

    The judge needs to learn the difference between these two things.
    • oldhick, on 02/28/2008, -8/+6Thats not true at all. Nearly every employee of every company sign non-disclosure agreements. That makes it illegal to leak documents regardless of the reason. What IS NOT illegal is to provide those documents to law enforcement. But posting them on the web serves no one's interest.
      • Tiemmothi, on 02/28/2008, -1/+11its amazing how things get skewed.... and your entirely correct. You have no right to post a document into public domain if you signed a NDA, but you do have every right to take the incriminating evidence to the proper legal authorities. Whistle blowers are protected by Federal Law in this regard.
        • digitalhair, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3NDA's can be rendered obsolete in the court of law if they infringe on the constitutional rights of individuals and for other similar reasons - which they often do. For example, my supervisor hands me an NDA that includes a clause stating that they don't have to pay me for commission owed to me if I am terminated. I ask them what happens if I don't sign the NDA. The answer has always been "you'll be fired." Whistleblower laws have been created that protect individuals in such cases.
          • Tiemmothi, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3Correct but that is a different example than what was given, which is taking a private document that shows wrong doing and posting it on a public system. My main gripe with this is simple. If you know of wrong doing, your best bet (and if you have common sense imo) is to give all the documents to your local, state or federal attorney general, police department or some associated law enforcement agency, not post it on a wiki. I do think this judge has over stepped his bounds on what the main article is about, and i hope that his decision is overturned.
          • Tiemmothi, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2also your example, whistle blower laws wouldn't have an effect on, for the simple fact that your refusing to sign an NDA over wages. Labor laws might have a say in whether you get fired or not, but that all depends on the state you live in. Federal discrimination laws wouldn't help you either.
          • bjornski, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2@Tiemmothi

            Do you really think going to ANY of the Attorney Generals or law enforcement agencies would have done ANY good at all? It would just be handed off to someone like this judge, and quashed in silence.

            No, this is the exact type of thing that has to come out publicly, to as many people as possible, because the very authorities that you suggest people go to would be "influenced" by the banks, just as in this case.
          • digitalhair, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1My analogy regarding non-disclosure and labor laws has application here because I feel like wikileaks.org is the direct result of Big Media's failure to do precisely what it should be doing: PROTECTING CITIZENS. Unfortunately, NDA's include clauses that infringe upon the rights of their employees because corporations know employees have little other recourse than to just sign away their rights. Even for someone that can PROVE they've been treated unfairly, it is more practical to lick your wounds and move on than to seek restitution for wrongdoing from a Company and these corporations KNOW that, which is why we still have these issues.
            A brilliant, patriotic website like wikileaks gives individuals the unique opportunity to easily get uncensored information out to the public, simultaneously providing (FINALLY) a place for the public to go when they want to get past the jaded PR ***** we hear from the dominant Media hubs that have financial constituencies that prevent them from proliferating the truth. As a direct result, private citizens are left squabbling about dogma provided by these outlets without knowledge of the source of the problems, effectively wresting constitutional authority out of our hands and placing it in the hands of those that control the information. Wikileaks properly accomodates citizens where private business, the "free" press, law enforcement, government, and society-as-a-whole has failed to provide an outlet where information can be evaluated for fairness without fearing retaliation for such openness and public disclosure, thus preserving our constitutional authority. This is why I find corporate "personhood" abominable, because it is clear to me that corporations as a whole are not "equal" to men in the eyes of the law because time and time again we have seen how much widespread social and financial power they they wield over the lives of individuals thanks to their vast resources, especially when they provide most of the regional employment, own so many subsidiary companies, and offer no meaningful recourse to citizens by forcing them to accept unfair treatment (reduced pay in my analogy) in return for their continued employment.
      • pintomp3, on 02/28/2008, -1/+6wrong, the reason does matter:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower
        A whistleblower is an employee, former employee, or member of an organization, especially a business or government agency, who reports misconduct to people or entities that have the power and presumed willingness to take corrective action.
        • Tiemmothi, on 02/28/2008, -5/+6people or entities that have the power is the operative phrasing.. in other words some form of law enforcement, not some wiki on the internet.
          • digitalhair, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2if it was that simple, it would have stated "law enforcement," but it does not.
          • bjornski, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1And our system of "law enforcement" has been PROVEN to be corrupt and protecting organizations such as this bank.

            Why would going to them with this info have done anything at all?
        • jwrichards, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2You're making the unwarranted assumption that disseminating documents to the public won't inform people or entities that have the power to take corrective action. That is clearly untrue, as once illegal conduct becomes public knowledge it will in fact be corrected.
          • Tiemmothi, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2Maybe so, but my argument is still in regards to an NDA, which is in return a legally binding contract. Releasing company documents into the public domain (wiki, web site or having it printed in the classifieds of a news paper), while whistle blowing or not, is not necessarily an OK thing. It is something that might or might not come back to bite you in the butt later on.
      • ubuwalker31, on 02/28/2008, -0/+6Oldhick, you are correct...except for the rule that you can't contract illegal activity. So for example, you can't contract a murder. Likewise, you can't contract silence (which can be considered misprision of a felony) about money laundering or other crimes.
      • kipmartin, on 02/28/2008, -2/+1 Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam & Hawaii are in the 9th Circuit. very left leaning?
        • jwrichards, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3If you actually bother to look into it, you'll see that the 9th Circuit is indistinguishable from any other Circuit on any metric other than size. It has a higher number of cases overturned, but the proportion of cases overturned is the same as or lower than other circuits.
          • mbthompson, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Not so. It is well known that the 9th circuit court of appeals has a larger ratio of overturned cases than any other circuit in the United States. Standards such as those of California, that do not require a law degree in order to be licensed council, usher in this kind of result.
        • digitalhair, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2Christ, shutup about the liberal this liberal that. Go to townhall or something.
  • uziko, on 02/28/2008, -2/+14Hey people we need to enforce the constitution ourselves, the piece of paper isn't going to grow legs and enforce itself. We ARE the constitution. Just sitting around bitching about how everything is unconstitutional isn't going to do *****.
    • SuckMyDigg, on 02/28/2008, -7/+4Neither is posting comments about the lack of action. A bit hypocritical aren't we?
      • digitalhair, on 02/28/2008, -2/+2stop trolling man, your username establishes your purpose, so stop wasting everyones time
    • scubaman5000, on 02/28/2008, -6/+3What have you done?
      • uziko, on 02/28/2008, -2/+5absolutely nothing
      • bjornski, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Aaah, $cientology tactics, huh?

        Have you stopped molesting your neighbors children? Why don't go door to door and ask everyone in your neighborhood?
  • whoamarcos, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3mirror?
  • jetnet, on 02/28/2008, -8/+2@EricDrawback

    Thats the first good idea I have heard in a long time...
    • akkibaba, on 02/28/2008, -2/+8Here's another good idea : Use the ***** reply button.
  • Ell3, on 02/28/2008, -7/+9I wonder how many of the people that are upset by this raw abuse of power are upset by liberal administrators on our college campuses trampling our 1st Amendment rights by instituting Speech Codes?
    • digitalhair, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2post an article to digg if you care that much about it. Otherwise, i don't know what you're talking about.
    • zephyrprime, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3colleges aren't the government last I checked.
    • Goatheadsoup, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Ell3, are you aware that college campuses are almost entirely NOT public forums, and therefore do not have many 1st Amendment protections? You are pretty much at the mercy of the policies, like it or not. Most colleges actively try to push free speech rights where they do not have to in order to foster discussion.

      The 1st Amendment is very poorly understood by many, as most of the places people try to assert their rights are not "public" in the legal sense.
  • retr0grade, on 02/28/2008, -0/+7the hamster is dying. here's a google cache of the article text...

    http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:qGYwSK3UpZcJ: ...
  • wacki, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3http://duggmirror.com
  • ChngeGovernment, on 02/28/2008, -2/+6I could see this whole mess creating a legal system for the Internet, giving judges power to make such rulings enforceable. It's a very scary thought.
  • nogster, on 02/28/2008, -4/+2This is a broken link
    • Plughie, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1Internets to Diggers: use reliable web sources
  • MCCULLAH, on 02/28/2008, -2/+8i would pwn them at the constitution
  • Corrosionx, on 02/28/2008, -4/+9Wikileaks is a canary in the coal mine. What will be censored next?
    • mbthompson, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3Ooh, good metaphor. I wonder how many people can actually connect the dots to your reference without going to Wikipedia or some other online source?
  • c130commnav, on 02/28/2008, -1/+9And so many people say that freenet is pointless and unnecessary. It is sad times when those people are wrong :(
    http://freenetproject.org/
    • jawnboy, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3Freenet was a really good idea conceptually, but it was tainted really early on by kiddie porn which turns most people away instantly.
      Now that might have been natural as pedo's look for some safe way to deal in their *****. However it would be an effective way for someone else on the outside to kill a system that they didn't really want to see established. I am not saying it was, just thinking out loud.
  • thrill, on 02/28/2008, -1/+4If the tax evasion is being performed by individuals inside the US, this should be protected as a Qui Tam whistleblower case. Unless of course a large undisclosed amount was deposited in a numbered account for Heir Judge White Magistrate Esquire(tm).
  • bovox, on 02/28/2008, -9/+6Why is every pimple-faced n00b with a keyboard on Digg a constitutional law expert?
    • Skywise, on 02/28/2008, -5/+5For the same reason that they still think a judge ordered the site scrubbed when in reality that was the agreement made between the ISP and the bank to settle the case (which was one item among many) and the judge approved the SETTLEMENT.
      • aaronlandau, on 02/28/2008, -2/+5Ha! Nice try, but there's been no settlement. (Or, "SETTLEMENT.") The orders have been reported widely and distributed publicly. Reading them -- or the article you're commenting on -- might help you out.
    • dudeguy1234, on 02/28/2008, -2/+5Noob. We occasionally read things.
    • jawnboy, on 02/28/2008, -3/+2It is becoming a necessary survival trait, as governments struggle to adapt to recent social and technological changes they are squeezing people's rights from all directions. For those that love power this is going to have the opposite effect of what they sought however, as it is engendering a generation of young people who are extremely interested in the political process and in protecting their rights.
      "Man, I should have just said, yeah"
      • mbthompson, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4Or in other words, "The tighter your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
    • Corrosionx, on 02/28/2008, -3/+6The Constitution is ***** easy. Getting around it takes years of education in law and experience in politics.

      Either way the Constitution failed: It either permitted the present government to exist or it was powerless to stop it.
  • Obsidian743, on 02/28/2008, -1/+5http://www.jail4judges.org/
  • nahsrocketeer75, on 02/28/2008, -0/+7It's the futility and counterproductive nature of what the bank has done that strikes me most. You would think that anyone with even a passing knowledge of the Internet and Wikileaks would know this effort would not only fail but backfire. Any lawyer telling them anything else committed malpractice.
  • jdack, on 02/28/2008, -1/+4dugg simply because that headline is AWESOME.
  • mrcoderga, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3To the press alone, chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression.

    James Madison
    • digitalhair, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3Who's this Madison guy and why does everybody keep talking about him??? (sarcasm)

      It's so arrogant and naive to dismiss the wisdom of our fathers on the basis of antiquity. Then we meet the day when we realize that they were always right, and are therefore obligated to practice the same wisdom before passing it on to our sons.

      • mbthompson, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2True true, and yet we must take all their wisdom, not just pick and choose that which proves our particular position or that we find palatable. I'm not accusing you of this, it's just so rampant in political arguments today.
    • bjornski, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3"Landholders ought to have a share in the government
      to support these invaluable interests and check the other many.
      They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority
      of the opulent against the majority."
      James Madison
      Source: Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787,
      3rd ed., vol. I., p. 422

      "History records that the money changers have used
      every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible
      to maintain their control over governments
      by controlling the money and its issuance."
      James Madison

      "Since the general civilization of mankind,
      I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms
      of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power
      than by violent and sudden usurpations."
      James Madison
      Source: Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution,
      in_Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the
      Federal Constitution,_ Jonathan Elliot, ed., v.3 p.87 (Philadelphia,
      1836), 6 June 1788
      http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/James.Mad ...

      "In framing a government, which is to be administered by men over men,
      the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government
      to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control
      itself."
      James Madison
      (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
      Source: The Federalist; Feb.8, 1788
      http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1776-1800/federalist ...
  • heystoopid, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3Interestingly the recent bare bones dumb and stupid uninformative hastily badly written press release by the Bank in question in order to deflect the heat from extremely odd decision but very illegal unconstitutional ruling by Judge Jeffrey White bears absolutely no relationship to what the bank's paid legal team actually sought in the Federal Court Injunction in San Francisco ! If that is the best they can do a short notice , the organization is truly riddled from top to bottom with adherents of the "Peter Principle" ! It's commitment statement includes the wording "socially responsible corporation." now that be a contradiction in terms given actions of the past month and a past history that is associated with this particular bank !

    The guilty do protest too much , that we are innocent of any wrong doing by the action of sycophants and people paid to do their bidding in a court of law !

    As if , let the hilarious circus of guilty parties continue to fall on their swords whilst stabbing each other in the back at the same time !

    Sadly , had this questionable Judge done it properly , he effectively would have set the bench mark judgment for the North Amerikan Free Trade agreement and the 1998 Bono act compliance , but alas he has literally blown it all whilst making himself look like the ignorant fool at the same time for all to see he is a very unsuitable choice to remain on any Federal Bench ! Perhaps a petition seeking his immediate resignation should be implemented ?

    What price a choice indeed ? , let the Streisand effect continue unabated thus !
  • monarch00, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3"We're sorry, your traffic has crumpled our server. On the upside, you can still subscribe to our RSS feed and get access to most content!"

    Fantastic.
  • widgetmaker, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3Digg effect!
    http://www.thelegality.com/ stripped down site with article.
  • bingobongony, on 02/28/2008, -4/+2The internet masses is the LAST place you want to go for knowlege of the law or the Constitution.
    • AmersJD, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Normally, I would agree with you, but if you look at The Legality site, you will see that these articles are written by second-year law students and are extensively researched and edited. Sure, they aren't lawyers yet, but they are probably in a better position to understand and comment on legal issues than the average blogger.
  • Truzseeker, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3That means judges and courts can't conceal a cover-up that has no evidential threshold like probable cause. One having knowledge of the concealment can join the judge's conspiracy and report same to any grand jury per 18 USC 3501 on behalf of dirty parties or feds.
  • kev92486, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3Internets to ALL branches of government: You're AWFUL at the Constitution.
  • kronzdigg, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5interestingly enough I read the entire u.s. constitution about a week ago. As I did I couldn't help but see so many areas in my life where my constitutional right (so called) are tread upon daily. I wish people would get on the RP train. I will continue to support all Constitutionally restricted candidates.
  • Khast, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Society has changed over the last 30 years. Back before the internet, employees were told to keep secrets. Oops, something leaked...it wasn't that big of a deal...yeah it was...but it wasn't like it couldn't be stopped.

    Now, if something leaks, you have approximately the time between the leak, until that person has access to the internet. Literally leaks can spread around the world in a matter of minutes...before anyone even knows there has been a leak.

    The world has to adapt to this, as the internet is hard enough to censor, and new technologies makes it that much harder.

    Yeah, what good does it really do to order a DNS server to not resolve an IP address.....if the IP address is accessible just by typing it in....really.
  • Herostratus, on 02/28/2008, -1/+4We're over in Iraq "fighting for OUR freedoms" meanwhile at home we are losing all of our freedoms that we are supposedly fighting for. Looks like we're losing overall but its great when we can score a victory such as this one.
  • slippiefist, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2"We're sorry, your traffic has crumpled our server."

    gj digg
  • dofe, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2The judge did not shut down the site. He merely approved a settlement agreement between two parties. There is BIG difference.
  • davidfry, on 02/29/2008, -1/+0The Judge is Jeffrey White -
    http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2973
  • PHiZ187, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3All of the documents filed in this case: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-candce/case ...
  • DestroyFascism, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2So a newspaper or tabloid prints a damning article and they get...a hand slap, a fine, a chance to argue in court.
    A website, perhaps someones bread and butter, gets ripped out from the socket before one even knows about it.
    Where is the justice and equality in that? Whatever happened to habius Corpus and similar concepts or Innocent until proven guilty and representation? Is it me or do Americans and American judges assume too much and take way too much for granted?
    After all, are both not a place to inform, to communicate and to represent those who don't know? to Spread information.....If its wrong then let a jury decide, let the people at least be represented!
  • lolo2007, on 06/24/2008, -0/+0interestingly enough I read the entire u.s. constitution about a week ago. As I did I couldn't help but see so many areas in my life where my constitutional right (so called) are tread upon daily. I wish people would get on the RP train. I will continue to support all Constitutionally restricted candidates.

    http://vb.paramegsoft.com/12907.html
    http://vb.paramegsoft.com/12921.html
    http://girls.paramegsoft.com/
    http://www.paramegsoft.com/
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
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.