back to article Wikileaks judge reverses takedown order

Civil libertarians scored a decisive victory on Friday when a federal judge reversed two controversial orders meant to disable Wikileaks, a website devoted to disclosing confidential information exposing unethical behavior. US District Judge Jeffrey S. White issued the orders two weeks ago after Wikileaks posted internal …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Coat

son of a...

Whats this... common... sense... head... exploding... paradox.

I've always said:

Fear the politician that claims he'll make the trains run on time.

and

The end is near when courts start to work for the common man rather than against.

mines the one with the NBC hood.

0
0
Joke

so unexpected...

some of the rubbish they come up with, criminals don't have a right to shut down any website that exposes then? next thing you know they will be trying to claim tazers can kill people!

0
0
Boffin

Today's news...

..."Federal courts lack jurisdiction in cases where both the plaintiff and defendant are located outside the country."

No shit?

0
0
Thumb Up

Wow

I'm actually impressed by the judge now - rather than sticking his head in the sand like many US judges would, shouting 'no, no, no, I've made my decision and I'm sticking to it', he's actually listened to the arguments (on both sides) and made a rational decision, and has the balls to admit that he made a big, embarrassing mistake.

Of course, he shouldn't have issued the original gag order, and his reputation will be in tatters because of it, but kudos to him for owning up to his errors.

0
0
Bronze badge
Paris Hilton

Duh! Amendment.

..."Federal courts lack jurisdiction in cases where both the plaintiff and defendant are located outside the country."

And Judges in the USA don't need to be vaguely familiar with the US constitution.

Is the old fool still working? Here's a "get out of jail, free" heiress.

0
0
Pirate

@david

@david suggest you pick up a good volume or two about International Treaty Obligations within the US Federal Legal System together with a full copy of the North American Free Trade Agreement as signed by Switzerland '06/07 especially the sub clauses allowing the Swiss National citizens and /or companies to initiate appropriate legal sanction as outlined in the 1998 Bono Act to redress copyright abuse in the US by either it's citizens or corporations !

Happy reading with additional research , it may wash away a large volume of mud or other !

Much has changed in the legal landscape , in many countries thanks to new treaty obligations since the dawn of this new century of propaganda rules !

As for wiki by operating foreign servers and mirrors this prevents any one site from suffering any downtime should any one server or mirror go down suddenly and provide peak bandwidth load sharing too !

As for the Judge , if it was done properly it would have set the benchmark ruling for all future international cases , but as it stands he just keeps on digging an even bigger hole to hide in for some unknown reason , which is very strange when given his background resume prior to his bench appointment in 2002 by one GW Bush !

0
0
Unhappy

The Democrats just lost

It's a bad thing.

"Federal courts lack jurisdiction in cases where both the plaintiff and defendant are located outside the country."

What he means is that the federal courts cannot take American companies to task for their actions regarding Internet traffic between persons abroad.

The Democrats in Congress were holding out on this very point in the retroactive immunity for telecom companies bill.

0
0

@Henry...

Henry...

"What he means is that the federal courts cannot take American companies to task for their actions regarding Internet traffic between persons abroad."

NO, THAT's ERRONEOUS... because...

"Federal courts lack jurisdiction in cases where both the plaintiff and defendant are located outside the country."

If the COMPANY is American, then Federal courts DO have jurisdiction, because they are located _inside_ the country...

If a Brit writes to a German and somehow AT&T (or someone) does something to offend one or both the Brit/German, then they can sue AT&T (or someone) in Federal Court because AT&T (or etc.) is located in the USA.

0
0
Unhappy

His injunction was against an American company

The only action the judge took was against the domain registrar, who was indeed a party to every website access.

The domain name lookup was equivalent to using an ad in the printed telephone book.

This action extends the reach of corporate immunity against civil litigation, even for American companies.

0
0

Re: His injunction was against an American company

"This action extends the reach of corporate immunity against civil litigation, even for American companies."

That could be interesting for, say, a Chinese dissident using an anonymous proxy provided by a US company.

0
0

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Ash
Thumb Up

To steal from slashdot...

suddenshowofcommonsense!

0
0
Paris Hilton

@Malcolm Weir

That is not likely to happen .. think about it.

Im in UK and I phone someone in Germany .. where is AT&T going to come into the equation ? What I was routed via the states ????

If AT&T is a carrier in my country or receiving country then I would still sue in this country.

Paris .. cos she is easily confused as well ; )

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Judge need to retake Constitutional Law 101

So, the judge forgot about the Constitution until the EFF and ACLU reminded him? How'd that play out?

"Your honor, this is unconstitutional!"

"Oh shit, I knew I forgot to check something before issuing my last ruling."

0
0
Thumb Up

He hasn't lost his reputation

Ian Ferguson said:

...

Of course, he shouldn't have issued the original gag order, and his reputation will be in tatters because of it, but kudos to him for owning up to his errors.

-----

If anything, it has solidified his reputation... he isn't like most judges... he has been open-minded, listened to additional arguments about his decision, took in the new information, realized he was in error, and reversed himself.

That kind of person, earns my respect, and only enhances his reputation in my eyes.

That's the kind of person I want on the bench.

-- Smoovious

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums