en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/673766 Comments by libertyactivist http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114540398 Hoosier, the Supreme Court said in the Pentagon Papers case that the Espionage Act of 1918 was invalid as far as an individual or a group (aka press) releasing the top secret documents, and are covered under the First Amendment and are not guilty of any crime. And that only the person (the Buck Private in the case) is guilty of a crime or espionage. So according to that decision, wikileaks, the releaser of the documents is not guilty of any crime or espionage, but the buck private who did is fully prosecutable of any crimes or espionage. Period! Obama and them are highly embarrassed by what has come out about them, want it stopped, but know they have Constitutional or legal course against Assange. That is why they haven't gone after him. Trust me Obama and his goons know the Constitution and law well, they just refuse to obey it when they can get away from it, just like W. Bush and his cronies when they were in office. Wed, 8 Dec 2010 19:36:13 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114540398 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114324459 not all classified information is classified to save lives.to believe that is the height of naivety. Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:39:58 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114324459 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114324220 Its not espionage. wiki didnt steal the documents they only reported them Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:38:24 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114324220 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114324051 pcnav, wikileaks didn't obtain or steal the documents. they received them. news papers and press outlets recieve things all the time Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:37:26 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114324051 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114323694 No one has been killed cause of his info. Your making stuff up Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:35:22 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114323694 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114323588 your scary that you would want someone who is outing the government for asking its agents to steal ambassadors credit cards, and more criminal activity. Or saying things that shouldnt be said. Now that the government knows that what it does illegally or immorally then maybe they will behave. Doubtful, but a bot can dream. Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:34:43 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114323588 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114323215 pcnav, Assange isn't guilty of espionage for leaking the stolen documents, anymore than the Washington Times would be, the one who stole the documents is. The Supreme Court has ruled that with the case of the Pentagon Papers. They decided that to protect the free speech of individuals and the press to call out the government when it was in the wrong. Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:32:38 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114323215 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114322290 Cowboy, the difference between Breitbart's being removed and wikileaks is that Amazon was intimidated into the action by the government, so they made the call based on being intimidated. Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:27:05 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114322290 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114321920 Biggy, They were intimidated into the action by the government, so they made the call based on being intimidated. Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:24:49 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114321920 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114321299 HoosierHistorian, it is still technically censorship when a private company does it. the only difference is it is legal for a private company to censor, but it is illegal for the government to censor, and its illegal for the government to intimidate a private company to censor. Edit Delete Report And wikileaks did not violate the terms, because they didn't steal the documents, they just released them. It is just like if the Washing times had received them. The theif who stole them could not deciminate them without it being illegal, but the Times or any individual can. Wiki lawfully released them. P.S. I am no lefty. I hate Obma and Bush, not personally, but politically. I can't stand 99% of the left and can't stand the majority who call themselves right, because they really are not. And remember, its Obama, the left who wants to get wikileaks. Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:21:09 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114321299 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114320434 They didn't do the right thing. They caved to government Mafiaso Pressure. I would respect them if they had done it without government intimidation and did it for moral reasons. Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:15:59 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114320434 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114320079 Shiori, comparing Bush's book to leaking bad, or possibly illegal government behavior is comparing apples to oranges. Teh government intimidated amazon.com and paypal to dump wikileaks, and that is called a shack down - Tony Saprano would be proud! Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:13:50 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114320079 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114319645 But, It is still technically censorship when a private company does it. the only difference is it is legal for a private company to censor, but it is illegal for the government to censor, and its illegal for the government to intimidate a private company to censor. Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:11:08 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114319645 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114319418 Also the Press is a different story. It is still technically censorship when a private company does it. the only difference is it is legal for a private company to censor, but it is illegal for the government to censor, and its illegal for the government to intimidate a private company to censor. Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:09:43 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114319418 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114318899 It is still technically censorship when a private individual does it..its just not illegal when a private business or individual does it. But it is illegal when the government does it or pressures a private individual or company to do it. The government making telling Amazon.com to stop hosting wikileaks is government censorship via threat (It is considered a treat no matter how nice the government ask because they are in a position of power). Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:06:51 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114318899 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114318257 insolublog, this doesn't wash. The documents were lawfully recieved by wikileaks, it was illegally obtained by the orginal person who stole it. Example if I stole documents from the government, then I illegally stole them. But if I gave them directly or indirect;y, anonymously or not, to the Washington Times. Then the Washington Times recieved them legally. Its not like a stolen radio. Then even with a radio, if a thief gave me a stolen radio and I turned it over to the public, then I am not guilty of theft; the thief who stole it is. Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:03:19 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114318257 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114317429 To insolublog, What wikileaks is releasing is not illegal. It is illegal for the person who stole the documents to steal the documents in the first place (wikileaks did not steal the documents). But, it is not illegal to release the documents once they are in your possession as an individual or as the press. So, if Amazon thought wikileaks was committing illegal activity, then they could have been following their TOS. But the facts are a US Senator (aka the government) told Amazon that they needed to stop hosting wikileaks. This could be construed by Amazon as being intimidated by the government (because the government has power), even if that wasn't the intent of the Senator. But we should always be skeptical when an agent of the government (who has great power) asks an individual or a private business, non-profit or whatever to stop participating in activity that the government doesn't like. Tue, 7 Dec 2010 17:58:28 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114317429 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114314802 Greg, you are both right and wrong. You are right that its not what we typically define as censorship: government blocking free speech, because it is a private company which can decide what to make and not make available to the public. But you are wrong as well. It is DEFACTO_CENSORSHIP because the government is threatening, intimidating or bullying Amazon.com not to make wikileaks data available to the public like the MAFIASO. TONY SAPRANO would be proud! Now again, even when a private company won't make certain information available (ONLY because they don't like only some of the speech, when they typically publish all speech), then it is technically still censorship, but the difference is they (private companies) legally can do it and the government legally can not do it, well at least Constitutionally the government can't. Tue, 7 Dec 2010 17:42:50 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/02/amazon-removing-wikileaks-from-their-servers-is-not-censorship/#IDComment114314802 http://freedomwatchonfox.com/2009/09/29/09292009-freedom-watch-39-w-mike-german-and-roger-pilon/10640/#IDComment36618347 Byron, also they only want fox news video, so they will get all hits on the fox website. Fox won't count the YouTube video hits. We need the Fox News Video hits to get the Judge a show on the Fox News Channel or at the very least Fox Business. We need to get him back on the live Strategy Room Feed. Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:43:29 +0000 http://freedomwatchonfox.com/2009/09/29/09292009-freedom-watch-39-w-mike-german-and-roger-pilon/10640/#IDComment36618347