Wikileaks.org Wins It’s Court Battle

For those of you who haven’t heard of Wikileaks.org, it’s a new organization focused on revealing secretive government documents, and classified subjects.  They’re “leaked” onto the site and made available for review and analyzation by anyone.  The site defines themselves as;

…developing an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking and public analysis. Our primary interests are in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we expect to be of assistance to peoples of all countries who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact… 

The media frenzie surrounding Wikileaks has been quit large, as well as the somewhat high profile legal proceedings that aimed at bringing down the wiki site.  A judge had initially ordered that the site be taken down, but has now reversed that order and Wikileaks.org reigns again.  Free speech advocates are happy after the judge ruled that closing down the site would violate first amendment rights.  Advocates on the other side, which was a number of banks and institutions that claimed the site leaked several financial documents pertaining to their clients, was obviously upset by the new ruling, but they’re intent to keep fighting.  As stated in a blog article from the New York Post;

…After hours of discussion that suggested the judge’s level of concern with reaching the correct outcome, Judge White looked unhappy that he could not think of a way to help the bank customers affected by the release of the documents. But he said that he feared the initial order suspending Wikileaks.org raised serious questions of unjustified prior restraint on free speech, and that in any event, once the documents were online, the court might well be powerless….

A problem lawyers and the judge faced was not knowing exactly how to classify Wikileaks.  A traditional individual or organization has citizenship status that can determine when they are subject to a particular court’s jurisdiction.  Wikileaks however defines themselves as;

….founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the U.S., Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa….

Wikileaks was never represented by a lawyer throughout the entire proceedings, which was also a hurdle to overcome.  Maybe they felt they didn’t need to.  Free speech and first amendment laws are obviously in play here, and to go against that is not smart on anyones part.  The judge displayed aggravation when being forced to rule in favor of Wikileaks, but he had to do so to satisfy our first amendment rights.  In my opinion they had no case at all.