Prior restraints
The odd story of the Wikileaks.org injunction is described here by the Berkman Center’s Citizen Media project. We still don’t know exactly why the site was ordered taken down - it seems like a trade secret issue - or why this was done ex parte, or why the court initially ordered wikileaks.org’s registrar/host to “immediately clear and remove all DNS hosting records for the wikileaks.org domain name and prevent the domain name from resolving to the wikileaks.org website or any other website or server other than a blank park page, until further order of this Court.” (That part of the order seems to have been revised - now it’s just a takedown order.) We’d like to know more about this court action.
Speaking of prior restraints, don’t tell EFF that retroactive immunity for the telcos is necessarily constitutional. As Cindy Cohn of EFF told Farber’s IP list, “[t]here are serious due process and separation of powers problems with the bill, which effectively grants the Executive the power to demand that pending court cases come out a particular way that favors the Executive. This is an extraordinary thing to do, especially when the constitutional claims of millions of Americans are at issue.” EFF has a chart of its responses to common arguments in favor of immunity, and has posted a set of documents relevant to the allegations made in its lawsuit.
Comments
3 Responses to “Prior restraints”
Got something to say?
Dear,
I’m a korean living in seoul.(name: Oh Minseok)
Korean special investigative team are investigating samsung
corporation.
But they does not work right.
I am suspicious to be bought off.
samsung corporation has many crimes.
And the team investigates samsung corporation.
It contains korean companies samsung,huyndai,sk CEOs’ illegal issuing
stocks or bonds.
The quantity are plenty.
(Three company CEOs did(and are doing) many crimes to me.
Many koreans are knowing it.
But many koreans are bought off by illegal issuing stocks or bonds.)
The team are knowing it.
Korean special investigative team must investigate this.
But they are trying to conceal it.
I ask for asking for this criminal investigation to prosecutors in any
country.
And help the shareholders.
P.S)
Three companies are hacking me.
And are suspicious to use my name and email illegally.
If you receive another message that I dictated above are not true,
it is not from me, but from three companies.
The things I dictated above are true.
leoscar7@gmail.com
The breadth of this injunction is surprising, given that the judge in question must have known (or at least believed) that not all aspects of it will stand up in an appellate court. Very strange stuff.
Having read the documents on Wikileaks, it looks like this matter was VERY poorly handled on their part. http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Full_correspondence_bewtween_Wikileaks_and_Bank_Julius_Baer
It seems to me that they had an obligation to disclose a DMCA agent which they refused to do. Moreover, they should have referred the entire matter to counsel and not corresponded with Lavely directly.
Don’t get me wrong; This restraint is disgraceful. Furthermore, Dynadot should have been more proactive. It seems that they just folded over.