Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Judge Shuts Down Web Site Specializing in Leaks

Expand Messages
  • Jon Roland
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/us/20wiki.html In a move that legal experts said could present a major test of First Amendment rights in the Internet era, a
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 20, 2008
    • 0 Attachment

      In a move that legal experts said could present a major test of First
      Amendment rights in the Internet era, a federal judge in San Francisco
      on Friday ordered the disabling of a Web site devoted to disclosing
      confidential information.

      Permanent Injunction
      Temporary Restraining Order
      <http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/wiki_tro.pdf> (pdf)
      Wikileak.org Blog <http://wikileak.org/>
      Citizen Media Law Project

      The site, Wikileaks.org <http://Wikileaks.org>, invites people to post
      leaked materials with the goal of discouraging "unethical behavior" by
      corporations and governments. It has posted documents said to show the
      rules of engagement for American troops in Iraq, a military manual for
      the operation of the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and other
      evidence of what it has called corporate waste and wrongdoing.

      The case in San Francisco was brought by a Cayman Islands bank, Julius
      Baer Bank and Trust. In court papers, the bank said that "a disgruntled
      ex-employee who has engaged in a harassment and terror campaign"
      provided stolen documents to Wikileaks in violation of a confidentiality
      agreement and banking laws. According to Wikileaks, "the documents
      allegedly reveal secret Julius Baer trust structures used for asset
      hiding, money laundering and tax evasion."

      On Friday, Judge Jeffrey S. White of Federal District Court in San
      Francisco granted a permanent injunction ordering Dynadot, the site's
      domain name registrar, to disable the Wikileaks.org domain name. The
      order had the effect of locking the front door to the site --- a largely
      ineffectual action that kept back doors to the site, and several copies
      of it, available to sophisticated Web users who knew where to look.

      Domain registrars like Dynadot, Register.com <http://Register.com> and
      GoDaddy .com provide domain names --- the Web addresses users type into
      browsers --- to Web site operators for a monthly fee. Judge White
      ordered Dynadot to disable the Wikileaks.org address and "lock" it to
      prevent the organization from transferring the name to another registrar.

      The feebleness of the action suggests that the bank, and the judge, did
      not understand how the domain system works, or how quickly Web
      communities will move to counter actions they see as hostile to free
      speech online.

      The site itself could still be accessed at its Internet Protocol address
      ( --- the unique number that specifies a Web site's
      location on the Internet. Wikileaks also maintained "mirror sites," or
      copies usually produced to ensure against failures and this kind of
      legal action. Some sites were registered in Belgium
      (http://wikileaks.be/), Germany (http://wikileaks.de) and the Christmas
      Islands (http://wikileaks.cx) through domain registrars other than
      Dynadot, and so were not affected by the injunction.

      Fans of the site and its mission rushed to publicize those alternate
      addresses this week. They have also distributed copies of the bank
      information on their own sites and via peer-to-peer file sharing networks.

      In a separate order, also issued on Friday, Judge White ordered
      Wikileaks to stop distributing the bank documents. The second order,
      which the judge called an amended temporary restraining order, did not
      refer to the permanent injunction but may have been an effort to narrow it.

      Lawyers for the bank and Dynadot did not respond to requests for
      comment. Judge White has scheduled a hearing in the case for Feb. 29.

      In a statement on its site, Wikileaks compared Judge White's orders to
      ones eventually overturned by the United States Supreme Court

      in the Pentagon Papers case in 1971. In that case, the federal
      government sought to enjoin publication by The New York Times and The
      Washington Post of a secret history of the Vietnam War.

      "The Wikileaks injunction is the equivalent of forcing The Times's
      printers to print blank pages and its power company to turn off press
      power," the site said, referring to the order that sought to disable the
      entire site.

      The site said it was founded by dissidents in China and journalists,
      mathematicians and computer specialists in the United States, Taiwan,
      Europe, Australia and South Africa. Its goal, it said, is to develop "an
      uncensorable Wikipedia

      for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis."

      Judge White's order disabling the entire site "is clearly not
      constitutional," said David Ardia, the director of the Citizen Media Law
      Project <http://www.citmedialaw.org> at Harvard Law School. "There is no
      justification under the First Amendment for shutting down an entire Web

      The narrower order, forbidding the dissemination of the disputed
      documents, is a more classic prior restraint on publication. Such orders
      are disfavored under the First Amendment and almost never survive
      appellate scrutiny.

      * Judge Says Use of MySpace May Violate a Court Order
      15, 2008)
      * Judges Release 5 British Muslim Youths

      14, 2008)
      * U.S. Program To Verify Worker Status Is Growing
      <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/13immig.html?fta=y> (February
      13, 2008)
      * Online Schooling Grows, Setting Off a Debate

      <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/education/01virtual.html?fta=y> (February
      1, 2008)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.