GNG News Guy
02-28-2008, 03:50 PM
http://i.dslr.net/urls/66/3566.gif (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Julius-Baer-Denies-Wikileaks-Censorship-Free-Speech-Issue-92239)
Last week Swiss bank Julius Baer, unhappy that the Wikileaks website (http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks) was leaking information about their money laundering, managed to convince a California Judge to force the website offline. The Judge in question had the website's host Dynadot yank their domain and prevent them from getting a new one, raising all kinds of questions about censorship and First Amendment rights.
http://thegng.org/quote_left_white.gifThis matter has nothing whatsoever to do with censorship or The First Amendment.http://thegng.org/quote_right_white.gif
Julius Baer
Opposition to the decision is starting to take shape (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080226/233504367.shtml), with multiple groups poking holes in the bank's case. While Wikileakes lawyers and groups like the EFF and ACLU tackle First Amendment issues, Public Citizen (http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2616) is busy arguing that the California court in question didn't even have the jurisdiction to shut down Wikileaks.In this case, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco does not have jurisdiction because the case involves a dispute between a foreign company and a foreign citizen who posted the documents, Levy said.
"The court s lack of jurisdiction would have been obvious had the judge been given time to think about the case, instead of being rushed into judgment on less than a week s notice," Levy said. "In shutting down this Web site through an unlawful prior restraint, the court has muzzled a very important voice in the fight against corporate and government misdeeds."
Meanwhile, Julius Baer seems to be jumping on the damage control bandwagon well after the fact, issuing this press release (http://www.juliusbaer.com/global/en/juliusbaergroup/corporateinformation/news/Pages/JuliusBaer%E2%80%93Wikileaksorg.aspx). In it they say they're eager to "address certain misconceptions relating to a recent court decision." The statement insists that last week's ballyhoo has "nothing whatsoever to do with censorship or The First Amendment."It is not and has never been Julius Baer's intention to stifle anyone's right to free speech. Indeed, Julius Baer has specifically made no attempt to remove material on the website which refers to the organization but which does not include information personal to its customers. However, Julius Baer denies the authenticity of this material and wholly rejects the serious and defamatory allegations which it contains.
Hopefully many of you feel better now that they've cleared this up? No?
Last week Swiss bank Julius Baer, unhappy that the Wikileaks website (http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks) was leaking information about their money laundering, managed to convince a California Judge to force the website offline. The Judge in question had the website's host Dynadot yank their domain and prevent them from getting a new one, raising all kinds of questions about censorship and First Amendment rights.
http://thegng.org/quote_left_white.gifThis matter has nothing whatsoever to do with censorship or The First Amendment.http://thegng.org/quote_right_white.gif
Julius Baer
Opposition to the decision is starting to take shape (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080226/233504367.shtml), with multiple groups poking holes in the bank's case. While Wikileakes lawyers and groups like the EFF and ACLU tackle First Amendment issues, Public Citizen (http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2616) is busy arguing that the California court in question didn't even have the jurisdiction to shut down Wikileaks.In this case, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco does not have jurisdiction because the case involves a dispute between a foreign company and a foreign citizen who posted the documents, Levy said.
"The court s lack of jurisdiction would have been obvious had the judge been given time to think about the case, instead of being rushed into judgment on less than a week s notice," Levy said. "In shutting down this Web site through an unlawful prior restraint, the court has muzzled a very important voice in the fight against corporate and government misdeeds."
Meanwhile, Julius Baer seems to be jumping on the damage control bandwagon well after the fact, issuing this press release (http://www.juliusbaer.com/global/en/juliusbaergroup/corporateinformation/news/Pages/JuliusBaer%E2%80%93Wikileaksorg.aspx). In it they say they're eager to "address certain misconceptions relating to a recent court decision." The statement insists that last week's ballyhoo has "nothing whatsoever to do with censorship or The First Amendment."It is not and has never been Julius Baer's intention to stifle anyone's right to free speech. Indeed, Julius Baer has specifically made no attempt to remove material on the website which refers to the organization but which does not include information personal to its customers. However, Julius Baer denies the authenticity of this material and wholly rejects the serious and defamatory allegations which it contains.
Hopefully many of you feel better now that they've cleared this up? No?