EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Amazon and WikiLeaks - Online Speech Is Only as Strong as the Weakest Intermediary
The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression against government encroachment - but that doesn't help if the censorship doesn't come from the government.
The controversial whistle-blower website WikiLeaks, which has begun to publish a trove of over 250,000 classified diplomatic cables, found itself kicked off of Amazon's servers earlier this week. WikiLeaks had apparently moved from a hosting platform in Sweden to the cloud hosting services available through Amazon in an attempt to ward off ongoing distributed denial of service attacks.
According to Amazon, WikiLeaks violated the site's terms of service, resulting in Amazon pulling the plug on hosting services. However, news sources have also reported that Amazon cut off WikiLeaks after being questioned by members of the staff of Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman. While it's impossible to know whether or not Amazon's decision was directly caused by the call from the senator's office, we do know that Lieberman has proposed "anti-WikiLeaks legislation" and that he has a history of pushing for online censorship in the name of "security."
Importantly, the government itself can't take official action to silence WikiLeaks' ongoing publications - that would be an unconstitutional prior restraint, or censorship of speech before it can be communicated to the public. No government actor can nix WikiLeaks' right to publish content any more than the government could stop the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers, which were also stolen secret government documents.
But a web hosting company isn't the government. It's a private actor and it certainly can choose what to publish and what not to publish. Indeed, Amazon has its own First Amendment right to do so. That makes it all the more unfortunate that Amazon caved to unofficial government pressure to squelch core political speech. Amazon had an opportunity to stand up for its customer's right to free expression. Instead, Amazon ran away with its tail between its legs.
In the end, it's not just WikiLeaks that suffers from corporate policies that suppress free speech, here on matters of intense public importance. It's also readers, who lose out on their First Amendment right to read the information WikiLeaks publishes. And it's also the other Internet speakers who can't confidently sign up for Amazon's hosting services without knowing that the company has a history of bowing to pressure to remove unpopular content.
Today Amazon sells many things, but its roots are in books, which historically have been a lightning rod for political censorship campaigns. These campaigns tried and failed to suppress Allen Ginsberg's Howl, Nabokov's Lolita, and even Orwell's 1984. And it's the book industry - including writers, publishers, booksellers and libraries - that has championed the rights of readers and helped America maintain a proud history of free speech in the written word, even when faced with physical danger.
While it's frustrating to think of any hosting provider cutting services to a website because it considers the content too politically volatile or controversial, it's especially disheartening to see Amazon knuckle under to pressure from a single senator. Other Internet intermediaries should now expect to receive a phone call when some other member of Congress is unhappy with speech they are hosting. After all, it worked on Amazon.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
83 Comments so far
Show AllDon't buy from AMAZON.
That I cannot help on. Have not yet bought anything from Amazon yet. And I do not have much money to do so anyway. Would need another way to protest than a boycott of Amazon as they will not much care about the opinion of someone without money. Boycotts by people of the shrinking middle class may help though.
What were the Connecticut voters thinking when they re-elected Lieberman? That they live in the "Constitution State"?
As a former CT resident even I can't answer that question. Hopefully it was only because of a combination of ignorance of his actions and name recognition. I really hope the people who voted for him were not actually informed voters, and were voting for him because they actually liked/agreed with what he has done.
" Hopefully it was only because of a combination of ignorance of his actions and name recognition.'
Dream on. Lieberman is popular because he is a strong advocate for Israel. When he lost in the Democratic primary he ran as an Independent and a lot of Republicans voted for him (instead of the Nebbish who got the Republican nomination) so he would not be replaced by A Democrat with brains and a backbone.
GI Joe has always brought the bacon home for Connecticut's influential military industrial complex (MIC) that dates to colonial times.
Keep in mind that in addition to war hardware manufacturers Pratt & Whitney, Colt, etc. the Wall Street criminals who sleep in CT are also part of the MIC.
BOYCOTT AMAZON! Hit these mercinary censoring bums where it hurts this holiday season.
Tony Vodvarka
Contact numbers for the Swedish embassy in Washington:
Tel: 1-202-467-2600
Fax: 1-202-467-2699
e-mail: ambassaden.washington@foreign.ministry.se
Tony Vodvarka
"BOYCOTT AMAZON!"
Absolutely a great idea. I will.
We should also make phone calls to senators/congressmen telling them to
treat Bradley Manning & everyone at WikiLeaks like Heroes.
They are global treasures that deserve our respect & support!
The truth will set us free
from the paws of the ruling
elite and all the extreme
misery that they create in
their perpetual quest for more
money and power.
Boycott Amazon, and Conn.
So, when does a Senator get the right to coerce a private company to do something in the name of security?
Gee, I thought the President and the executive branch were the enforcement branch of our government.
Now, Senator Deputy Dog Palpatine can just go around telling who he wants what to do.
A Seattle company named Tableau also folded to Lieberman yesterday.
And yet no one asks where he derives his authority from?
Has anyone asked the O if he told Lieberman to act as his emissary?
So, when does a Senator get the right to coerce a private company to do something in the name of security?
Good point. Unfortunately, a disproportionate amount of the power of the US government is rested with a group of like-minded, wealthy, long-tenured Democratic and Republican Senators, who have control over key Congressional committees and receive vast amounts of campaign funding, which enables them to perpetuate their incumbancy.
What is going on here with Wikileaks and with Julian Assange is reminiscent of the hysteria that occurred during the late 1940s and 1950s when the American government began rounding up and persecuting those whom they believed to be communists. Suspicion alone was enough to convince the politicians that people were communists. We now have mental midgets like Bill O'Reilly calling for the execution of Julian Assange. What O'Reilly conveniently neglects to mention is that Assange cannot be executed for treason for the simple fact that he is not an American citizen. But facts and logic have rarely been the strong suits of those who willingly engage in fear mongering and unfounded emotional attacks upon others.
O'Reily issued an execution fatwa? Maybe Assnage can get some tips from Salman Rushdie on how to reduce the risk.
"Bill O'Reilly calling for the execution of Julian Assange. "
The video I saw has him calling for the execution of whoever *leaked* the information, not Assange.
"What O'Reilly conveniently neglects to mention is that Assange cannot be executed for treason for the simple fact that he is not an American citizen."
Espionage has no such requirement. Whether that crime applies is a matter of opinion. There is currently much discussion in the news about this point regarding Assange. Google "assange espionage" and see.
Are you also going to attempt to excuse the latest rant from Jonah Goldberg who inquired in his latest syndicated column:
"Why wasn't Assange garroted in his hotel room years ago?"
Perhaps you should lend your alleged legal expertise to the United States Attorney General who does not seem to agree with how you view the subject of espionage in this country. When recently asked how the US could prosecute Assange, a non-US citizen, Eric Holder replied that he would attempt "to swiftly close the gap in current US legislation" which clearly implies that current US policy does NOT and cannot prosecute those who are not US citizens in relation to crimes of espionage. Closing the gap, in Holder's view, would mean, of course, re-writing the legislation in order to appease Holder by prosecuting Assange
It should not be forgotten that Obama promised a new era of transparency once he would be elected president. Like so many presidential promises this one has been left by the wayside.
Given the fact that the political and governmental leaders of the United States have essentially made Assange a marked man, it would be instructive for Assange to be aware of the words of a training manual that was put together by the CIA for its trainees in 1953 which advised its employees that:
"The most efficient accident, in simple assassination, is a fall of 75 or more feet onto a hard surface. Elevator shafts, stair wells, unscreened windows, and bridges will serve. The act may be executed by sudden vigorous [excised] of the ankles, tipping the subject over the edge. If the assassin immediately sets up an outcry, playing the 'horrified witness', no alibi or surreptitious withdrawal is necessary."
Since Julian Assange is undoubtedly aware of the CIA's murderous past, he will, in all likelihood, be most careful where he goes and of whom he associates with as he certainly knows the dangerous times that he, and we, inhabit.
"Are you also going to attempt to excuse the latest rant from Jonah Goldberg"
Of course not, we were discussing Bill O'Reilly, not Jonah Goldberg. You are changing the subject. Again.
Did Bill O'Reilly call for the execution of Assange or not? I haven't seen yet where he has done that. What do you think about that, Erroll?
Can *anyone* here help out Erroll and post something to support that this was the case?
"Perhaps you should lend your alleged legal expertise to the United States Attorney General who does not seem to agree with how you view the subject of espionage in this country."
I never put forth my view on the subject, I said it was a matter of opinion. As I said, there is an on going discussion as to whether or not Assange could be charged with espionage. That's all I said Erroll, and it's true.
"It should not be forgotten that Obama promised a new era of transparency once he would be elected president. Like so many presidential promises this one has been left by the wayside."
Well now, here is something that I can heartily agree with you on. How about that?
Another incoherent, less than mature comment by our neoconservative commenter. You wish to make the puerile observation that O'Reilly is calling for the execution of someone [while conveniently ignoring that other conservatives most certainly have] who leaked these documents to the world while minimizing whether or not these cables should have been leaked in the first place.
"We" were discussing Bill O'Reilly? Who ever stated that only Bill O'Reilly's name could ever come up for discussion? The point of all this, of course, is that these cables have come to light while you have done an excellent job of attacking the messengers while choosing to minimize the importance of what these cables, and the ones that have preceded them, have to say.
The irony here is that you are defending the honor of O'Reilly who is calling into question the patriotism of someone who leaked those cables to Wikileaks while apparently not being cognizant of the fact that your patriotic hero O'Reilly manged to avoid demonstrating his own patriotism when he somehow mysteriously did not find himself in the jungles of Vietnam despite the fact that there had been nothing to prohibit him from either being caught up in the military draft back then or enlisting and fighting for his alleged noble cause. O'Reilly, like other chickenhawks, is patriotic as long as there are other people who can fight in wars which he loves to portray as being patriotic and noble. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. And yet O'Reilly has the nerve to question other people's patriotism.
As someone who is, I assume, an adult you come across instead as someone who appears to be regressing instead of become more wise as you become older. My suggestion is that you take your toys and take them back to your playhouse as you seem to find it very difficult to act like an intelligent adult. Just an incredible display of someone acting in such a stupid, anal retentive, and juvenile, if not childish, manner.
Erroll, did O'Reilly call for the execution of Assange or not? You said he did. I said that I didn't see where he had said that. Please answer this question.
Of course, *anyone* who reads this and has an account on CD can come to Erroll's defence as well. Anyone? Did O'Reilly call for the execution of Assange or not?
BTW Erroll, I *know* you served, and I thank you for that.
"The video I saw has him calling for the execution of whoever *leaked* the information, not Assange."
Ahhh...he must have meant one of the numerous *other guys* who leaked the information then.....
Let me get you up to speed: Assange is not the leaker. Got that? O'Reilly specifically named PFC Bradley Manning regarding execution, and not Assange, in his broadcast of Nov 29. Those comments are wisely available for you reference.
You know who Manning is don't you?
You do know that Manning is innocent until proven guilty, don't you? If you do, then perhaps you can pass that on to your hero and that would be the chickenhawk Bill O'Reilly. Perhaps you are not aware that even the US government has admitted that no US personnel have been killed because of these leaks. Now that you are aware of this then perhaps you can now inform your hero, a/k/a the chickenhawk Bill O'Reilly, of this fact.
Far from being a traitor, Manning [if he is the one who had sent these cables to Wikileaks] should be looked upon as being a hero as opposed to the chickenhawk Bill O'Reilly. The leaker of these cables has show what a government most fears and that is how their war machine operates when it illegally and immorally invades and occupies other countries. The hope is that other people in the military will exhibit the same courage and wisdom as this person in the military has shown.
I am also unclear why you decided to engage in the usual knee jerk response given by so many Americans in your previous comment and that would be to thank me for my military service. Contributing to the needless and unjustifiable deaths of many Vietnamese people is hardly a reason to applaud someone for what they had done. If you had actually taken the time to do what so many Americans rarely do and that is to THINK you would have realized that instead of thanking myself and others for having been in the military you could have instead told myself and other military personnel that you were sorry that I and others had to have been unnecessarily placed in a combat zone in the first place which then endangered the lives of not only US military personnel but, more importantly, innocent civilians as well. But that, of course, would not fit in with the usual narrative of portraying those in the armed forces as being noble and heroic.
No, the true heroes of this country are those in the military who speak out against American Imperialism. Also, as Albert Einstein once observed:
"The Pioneers of a Warless World are the youth who refuse military service."
This is the third post you have made ignoring your false statement that Bill O'Reilly called for Assange to be executed. When you made that statement did you make a mistake or did you lie? It can only be one or the other. Just like the 911 Troother you are, when backed into a corner on a specific issue, you change the subject. So did you lie or make a mistake? I am completely uninterested in anything else you have said.
Thanks again for your service.
Another in the long line of self-serving comments that you have made in order, apparently, to massage your extremely fragile ego. Yes, I did indeed make a mistake as O'Reilly did call for the execution of PFC Bradley Manning even though, as I attempted to point out earlier, apparently to no avail, Manning, just like any other American citizen, should be looked upon as being innocent until proven guilty. It certainly is curious that you wish to focus upon the person that the chickenhawk named while wishing to completely ignore the content of what he said. But you are so caught up in focusing upon one detail and playing gotcha! that you once again fail to see the forest for the trees and that is to discuss whether Manning should be looked upon [if, again, if he is the one who leaked those enormous amount of cables to Wikileaks] as being a traitor or, unlike the chickenhawk O'Reilly, as someone who did a laudable service to his country by exposing the secrets of the war machine to the world. But that would actually require you to think and to question and to challenge authority which you seem to be extremely loath to do.
You have also again failed to answer my question. Why should I or any other person in the military be thanked for our service if we aided in the unnecessary destruction of innocent people in under developed countries? As I stated before, that is simply something that you apparently are not going to allow to happen as that does not fall into the usual narrative of proclaiming that those in the military are noble and just and pure. Again, try very hard to focus on the bigger issue and that is the significance that these cables have caused to the image of the United States.
I, also, am completely uninterested in the rubbish that you write as what you have to say is completely vacuous and, as I stated before, most immature, and nearly devoid of any meaning or substance.
Perhaps Shakespeare had you in mind when he wrote of sound and fury which signifies nothing.
"Yes, I did indeed make a mistake as O'Reilly did call for the execution of PFC Bradley Manning"
Thank you thank you. I salute you now for your admission despite the delay.
"But you are so caught up in focusing upon one detail"
Details, i.e "facts" are important. Opinions should be based upon reasoning which should in turn be based upon facts. When the facts aren't there, the base of that whole sequence is destroyed.
"Why should I or any other person in the military be thanked for our service if we aided in the unnecessary destruction of innocent people in under developed countries? "
Simply because you had no say in the matter as to how the government chose to deploy the military, i.e. you, yet you were still on the hook to risk your life. I salute you and all the others who put their name on the line knowing that they can't do what the rest of us can do regarding trying to stay alive and avoiding physical danger. I sure as hell couldn't do it.
"Again, try very hard to focus on the bigger issue and that is the significance that these cables have caused to the image of the United States."
The cables effect *everyone*, not just the US. Assange through the whole thing under the bus. Effective diplomacy depends upon the ability of people to have frank discussions in private. Assange, along whith whoever leaked the cables, has screwed that up for everyone, not just the US.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
You state, quite correctly, that "details, i.e. 'facts' are important." Indeed they are which is all the more baffling why you seem unable to comprehend the fact that O'Reilly's desire to see Manning executed is just as morally reprehensible if he had said that regarding Assange since, as I have tried to state for about the umpteenth time, Manning is an American citizen and as such deserves to be viewed as being innocent until proven guilty. But neither you nor the chickenhawk O'Reily seem able to grasp, to borrow from your word, that obvious fact.
Your claim that "Assange through [sic] the whole thing under the bus" ignores my earlier statement, [which you agreed with], that Obama should be in favor of allowing more transparency in the government. Rather than "screwing that up for everyone", Assange has instead revealed the inner workings of how diplomacy works which, as the cables show, is done in a pretty poor fashion. Despite what you seem to believe, there are extremely few things in government that should be kept secret. Of course these revelations "effect [sic] everyone". I never said otherwise. The hope is that they will be a lesson to others in how to be more honest in their dealings with other countries.
Regarding that inane desire of Americans like yourself to thank those in the military, what you seem unable to grasp is that it is far easier for someone to obey orders when he or she is in the military than it is to say NO to those illegal and immoral commands. The people who do say NO to those orders certainly deserve far more respect than the robots who in the past and now in the present continue to carry out the commands that they are given and by doing so that then means that they continue to belong to an organization that harasses, humiliates, murders, and rapes innocent people, only this time those acts are taking place in the Middle East instead of Southeast Asia. If there were soldiers occupying this country and who were carrying out acts of brutality against Americans would you then shower them with praise for the good job that they are doing?
After reading your comments it is no wonder that so many people ask if the art of critical thinking is totally defunct in what is supposed to be the best democracy in the world, namely the United States.
" O'Reilly's desire to see Manning executed "
He said executed or imprisoned for life, obviously in the spirit of letting a judicial procews take place.
" Obama should be in favor of allowing more transparency in the government"
Obama's pledge doesn't change the need for privacy and secrecy regarding specific conversations between diplomats.
"it is far easier for someone to obey orders when he or she is in the military than it is to say NO to those illegal and immoral commands"
While that may be true, it doesn't change the fact that if you do the former you may die. I stand by my admiration for your commitment to die.
"the art of critical thinking "
It was not me that made a mistatement from O'Reilly, and while the fact that you admitted your error shows improvement on your part, it seemed only because I called you on it, i.e., excercised Critical Thinking. I am very glad to have played a part in your learning of the facts.
Do these comments come to you in a moment of divine inspiration or are you always this obtuse? You keep harping on the fact that it was Manning that O'Reilly wanted to either execute or have imprisoned for life while once again totally ignoring the fact that it was your hero the chickenhawk who was quite willing to have this done to him despite the fact that an American is usually considered innocent until proven guilty. You probably consider this to be rather a quaint notion but nevertheless it remains a rule of law [at least in theory] in these United States.
Moving on, if Obama's pledge should not have affected the need for privacy, as you put it, then the world would not have found out how the United States was eager along with Israel [also known as the 51st state of this country] to bomb Iran. Nor would the world have known how the Somalis took credit for killing innocent civilians when it attempted to kill militants in its country while these communiques revealed that it was actually the less than benevolent United States that had carried out those attacks.
Your penultimate comment simply reveals how you are once again unable to look at the bigger picture. While demonstrating your love for the robots who are in the military, you continue to ignore those who courageously refused to carry out orders which would have meant being a part of an organization that harassed, bullied, murdered and raped countless numbers of people in under developed countries that the United States has invaded. Among the books that I have read concerning the GI resistance that took place during the Vietnam conflict, I cannot recall one instance where anyone died because they refused to remain a part of the US war machine. Many of them certainly went to jail and prison for their beliefs because they understood that their cause was just. Again, for the reasonable and intelligent person, this becomes a matter of perspective. Who is more deserving of praise, the person who automatically obeys the orders that he or she is given or the person who refuses to obey those orders because he or she realizes that his orders are contributing to the unnecessary and unjustified misery and deaths and suffering of an occupied country? Again, the reasonable and intelligent person would certainly recognize that it would be the latter, i.e, a person of conscience as opposed to the robot who went along with the program by obeying his orders without hesitation.
I suggest that, if you have any pretense of objectivity, you should either rent or buy two films which deal with those in the military who had the courage and moral certitude to say NO to the US war machine. One would be Sir! No Sir! which looked at the GI rebellion that took place during the Vietnam conflict those many years ago and the other would be a more contemporary and topical film called Soldiers of Conscience which deals with four soldiers who realized that they could not in good conscience participate in the subjugation and brutalization of the Iraqi and Afghan people. If this country had an ounce of integrity it would have parades in honor of these people and statutes built for the courageous stands that these veterans had taken. Unfortunately these things are never going to happen in a country which loves to honor those who willingly went along with American imperialism.
"innocent until proven guilty"
O'Reilly said nothing about denying due process for Manning. That you would read it that way is silly.
"courageously refused to carry out orders"
I would look at them on a case by case basis, and not make assumptions about the motivations of the individuals across the board, or the merit of those actions, as you want to do. Discretion is the better part of valor. And sometimes orders are refused in battle simply out of cowardace, I am sure you would not deny that.
"I cannot recall one instance where anyone died because they refused"
I was talking about the thousands who die in *not* refusing. That could have been you if you were near a dangerous area. I thank you and all the others who risked that.
Thank you for the movie suggestions.
So did Wikileaks violate the terms of service or not?
I know Lieberman wouldn't try to take credit for something he didn't do, so the only conclusion is Amazon must haved given in.
Too bad, but if defense of constitutional rights is dependent on Web hosts or any other business organizations, pronounce those "rights" dead.
Corporations and government are one now — I think that's called national socialism.
For me the real heartbreaker came yesterday when I found out that last year two of the most trusted, unselfish patriotic, all-American icons of our great capitalistic nation, McDonald's and Harley Davidson, went socialist and received government bailout financing. That did it for me.
No more Amazon, no more Whole Foods, Harleys or Big Macs. From now on I'm boycotting everyone.
Even if they did violate the terms of service, as the article points out, they certainly had a choice of what to do. That's why all they're getting from me this Christmas is a lump of coal. And I used to be a great customer.
This is one of the main reasons that "democratic" governments are outsourcing to private enterprise. Private enterprise can do things that governments may not, and they are staffed by people who are explicitly there to make a buck and not to serve the commonwealth.
amazon has been systematically kicking out any small sellers criticizing the US and Israeli crimes. most of the sellers that sell at amazon are tea party types and neo-cons / neo-libs. go read the seller chats.
boycott the entire amazon, even if you HAVE TO buy some corporate products.
While I hail Assange as a hero, I will not boycott Amazon.com. Amazon has millions of sellers, and is one of the few places where a small seller truly can compete with the large ones. It is a place for commerce, not for politics.
OK, coopersy, but consider that fifty-plus years ago, the same rationalization could have been applied to (not) boycotting Montgomery's public transit authority.
After all, the bus company offered thousands of unprivileged citizens of modest means transportation around the city-- it was all about transportation, not politics!
Commerce _is_ politics, my friend...
What's next. Book burning. ATT owning the Internet. (they did in saner times.). Just tried to use Google and got request to be verified as a human. Said that unusually high traffic from my subnet. WTF. I'm on an iPhone. Has Google gone nuts. ATT owns that too. Tried to send iNastygram back to them. Are the contactable at howthehelldoicontactgoogle@gmail.com???
Did these people piss off Hillary or Joe the Worm Lieberboy?
Now I'm on a real computer. I also wanted to interject - if you own a "Kindle", you're screwed too. Can't gather book's on Kindle and boycott Amazon at the same time. Amazon owns Kindle. Only purchased CD's through Amazon. Will not do so any more. Didn't want a Kindle to begin with, and the fiasco with "1984" just re-enforced that conviction. The only way I will feel something is mine, is if it is on my hard drive. It is not something parked on someone's else storage system.
no not next, book burning has already started:
Pentagon Destroys Copies of Controversial Memoir Written by Army Officer
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/25/pentagon-destroys-copies-controversial-memoir-written-army-officer/
Secretary of Clinton said it was wrong for China to shut down web sites for political reasons. She encourages a book seller like Amazon to be a US censor. You don't have to buy books or anything from Amazon. How many still buy the secrecy of Obama and Clinton.
"Secretary of Clinton said it was wrong for China to shut down web sites for political reasons." I am sorry to inform you but it is completely different when China shuts down web sites for political reasons. Three obvious reasons are; China spies on other countries, China shuts down sites if it is so much as is embarrassed by what they say, and China has never invaded a country to spread.
Please never question the good intentions of the USA's actions. When it comes to the Wikileaks what are you going to believe, what the US says or your lying eyes...
2010 marks the official death of useful/meaningful free speech in America. We are at the end of the first decade of the twenty first century and the US government has officially sanctioned for profit corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money anonymously to LIE to the public. Then only a few months later it is doing everything in its power to suppress a not for profit organization from speaking the TRUTH. People really need to pause a bit to let their minds wrap around those two facts. (Oh yea, and don't forget what appears to be the death of net neutrality that is now on the horizon).
There are three distinct aspects to free speech. They are the right to seek information and ideas, impart information and ideas, and to receive information and ideas.
Our governments official stance on these three rights now is;
You have no right to receive truthful information, if it so much as simply embarrasses the powerful,
Your ability to impart information should be directly proportional to you size of your wallet,
Your right to seek information should be controlled by a combination of government and large corporations.
As I think about this as I type, I suppose this has always been going on to various extents, but to me anyway it seems to be getting exponentially worse very quickly, and on bigger and bigger issues.
After having an account with Amazon for several years, I have just canceled it. It probably makes no difference to Amazon, but if we all can get even two of our friends to do the same, it might make a dent.
I canceled my orders, closed my account, and will never visit their site again. Let's speak truth to profit.
---------------------------------
I would rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for what I don't want and get that. -- Eugene V. Debs
I also will never order ANYTHING AGAIN from Amazon unless they reinstate Wikileaks. One wonders who will be the next one! And whether they will miss my measly 2 cents worth makes no difference to me as I feel much better already.
dravazed,
Here is your chance to vote now! Vote for Julian Assange for TIME man of the year and get two more friends to do it too. Assange is now in 2nd place just slight ahead of Lady Gaga and behind Erdogan, the Turkish PM.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,2028734,00.html
1 Recep Tayyip Erdogan 87 -180,203 votes
2 Julian Assange 86% - 123,994 votes
3 Lady Gaga 77 122090
I just did!
LOL! You sound disappointed. Past "honerees" include Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin (twice), Richard Nixon (twice), Ayatollah Khomeini, and George W. Bush (twice).
amen!
I should mention that there's a good article at Rawstory this morning about the closing down of Wikileaks across the globe...which includes a link that successfully accepts donations to Wikileaks. What could be better--take money from Amazon, and give it to Wikileaks?
---------------------------------
I would rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for what I don't want and get that. -- Eugene V. Debs