California judge orders site shut down
John Westover - February 21st, 2008Between a government that doesn’t want you to know what it is up to, and a media willing to ignore the government’s misdeeds, it’s hard to get a clear picture of what our…misguided politicians are up to.
The reality of what we’re told they are up to is often much different. This disparity between information and reality is the infowar. Welcome to it.
This is where Web sites like Wikileak.org step in.
Wikileak is just what it sounds like — a Wikipedia-like database where anyone, especially employees of governments and other organizations, can leak secret documents.
Wikileak’s Web site says it is designed to be an “an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking and public analysis.” It is devoted to exposing secrets and promoting transparency in government and the financial sector.
Thousands of documents have been leaked on Wikileaks.org. The U.S. military’s rules of engagement in Iraq, homeland security threat overviews, and Kenyan presidential fraud evidence all appear and are analyzed on the site. It’s a fascinating wiki, really.
Don’t bother typing that address in, though; you won’t find it any more.
A federal judge in California ordered that the domain be shut down. While you can still access the site the round-about way (try http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks), this ruling has some disturbing implications.
First, it sets a precedent that will make it eaiser for judges and lawmakers to try and censor content online in the future. The Internet is quickly becoming the last bastion of free speech, as the First Amendment rarely protects any American citizen in public any more. The last thing humanity needs is for the free flow of information and ideas to be stifled.
Second, more and more it should make people wonder just what the government is doing that they don’t want known. At some point, “national security” is just not a good excuse anymore. What are they up to, and where are my tax dollars going?
Government whistleblowing sites like Wikileaks have become our only source to witness government misconduct. Judges who act against them are either misguided or willfully ignoring the beneficial existence of such sites, and are legislating from the bench.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:18 pm
The judge was absolutely right in allowing the closure of a web site that had the potential to endanger the lives of Americans. It shouldn’t fall on the shoulders of a group of webmasters to dictate what is right and what is wrong for the American people (and potentially people with hostile intentions against America) to know about how government agencies conduct business (especially in instances of national security). Scooter Libby stepped over the line (or didn’t) when he revealed the identity of a CIA agent (many months after she was decommissioned from her post). Was he wrong to disclose government secrets? What’s interesting is that the same people who condemned Libby are also condemning the closure of Wikileak.org for doing the same things. Free information is a beautiful thing and in America, people should be allowed to know the inner workings of their government. However some things are better left a secret and it’s irresponsible to allow a small group of single-minded individuals control what government secrets the public (and possibly those with hostile intentions towards America) knows.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:42 pm
*continuation*
On one end of the spectrum you have a document that says what’s for lunch tomorrow in the cafeteria of the FBI building, and then on the opposite end you have the names and identities of secret agents in Lebanon who are working to prevent an anti-helicopter rocket arms deal from happening. As you look towards the center of the spectrum of what is disclose able information and what is not, the line between the two becomes very thin and blurred. It’s questionable to have that line read by a couple of guys running a web site.