Internet disruption (Ddos) as civil disobedience re: Wikileaks (the site continues to get many comments, some quite thoughtful).

Wikileaks aka Cablegate presents many questions including political, constitutional, legal and moral- – just to name a few. This thoughtful article examines several portions of those debates.

I predict that the generated discussions surrounding the fact of the leaks will surpass and long outlive the discussions of the leaks themselves.


About Gil Jones

CPA/Attorney/Judge by training and trade. Hobby nut at heart with BMW m/c, computers, ham radio, kayak fishing, photography, hiking and, starting in 2010 some semi-serious running and bicycling (road and mountain bikes). Retired after 16 years on a Texas District Court bench and since 2013 have been mediating cases. I am a Credentialed Distinguished mediator (TMCA).
This entry was posted in computing, serious and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Internet disruption (Ddos) as civil disobedience re: Wikileaks

  1. Don Bynum says:

    ” Several corporations bowed to political pressure and cut off services to Wikileaks. It has not yet been proven that the organization broke any laws, but Paypal, Mastercard and others decided to stop allowing citizens to show their support for the organization by giving them money. This is a clear violation of limiting a form of speech “— I think the author sorta “lost it” on this point. Companies are not limiting any right of free speech, they are choosing who they wish to do business with and who they do not choose to do business with. That is an exercise of free speech by those businesses, and a protected one as I understand it, so long as they do not make the decision based on any of several protected classes being involved. If the government operated Paypal, and slammed the door that might be a denial of some possible right, because of the unique status of government in all of its relationships.

    I heard little of the logic the author presents when it was in vogue to harrass companies into not doing business with South Africa. Much the opposite was all the rage.

    But… you are right, this is an interesting topic overall. My libertarian leanings aside, it would seem to me that the 1917 law should have a prohibition against publishing (which is “to make public” and need not be the first instance of the publication) any classified information because there is plenty of stuff the gummint knows which sure as shooting should not be public knowledge for a variety of reasons, some seemingly substantive and darn well justified and others much less clearly justifiable. “The law” must hate shades of gray because they make Lady Justice want to pull up her blind-fold for a peek at context. Likewise, ideolgues must hate shades of gray even more because any context but the one in their base cartoon model of any opposition is distracting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s