Civil Rights Groups intervene in the event WikiLeaks

Coalition ignored claims WikiLeaks.org closure First Amendment and sets a dangerous legal precedent.

The cast of characters in Julius Baer v. WikiLeaks become much more crowded last Tuesday, as a coalition of civil rights groups filed motions to intervene on WikiLeaks’ name in time for a hearing on the renewal of the District Court for an injunction against the WikiLeaks . Org domain name.

With the added support, WikiLeaks now has some heavy weapons support: intervenors include the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the ACLU of Northern California, and the Project on Government Oversight, all of whom expressed serious concern over the injunction of the First Amendment ramifications .

“The court order is turned off and hangs the domain name Wikileaks.org permanently, effectively interfere with the public’s ability to access materials on the Web site as easily as possible,” said ACLU attorney Aden Fine. “The public has a right to receive information and ideas, especially those relating to public interests. This injunction which ignores vital First Amendment principle.”

Julius Baer, owner of the private documents in WikiLeaks’ possession, denied the accusations that he is trying to step on the public highway rights of the first amendment. “This issue has nothing to do with censorship or the First Amendment,” read a press release issued yesterday. “Instead, the sole purpose Julius Baer has always been limited to the removal of these private and legally protected documents from the website.”

Many believe that the court order to defuse WikiLeaks.org domain was a rubber stamp for the district court in San Francisco, contends WikiLeaks the ex parte hearing, which produces the order was carried out hastily and that the injunction in it was accepted by the district judge without any additional amendments. Given that Julius Baer v. WikiLeaks is considered a unique historical event, it was generally believed that leaving intact the injunction could set a dangerous precedent.

“DynaDot private agreement to disable access to clients of the domain name and the court approval of this agreement (sic) raise serious First Amendment concerns,” said EFF Senior Prosecutor Matt Zimmerman. “Julius Baer’s private dispute regarding a former employee of the alleged violation of a confidentiality agreement does not guarantee this attempt to block access to material hosted on the First Amendment rights of WikiLeaks readers who have a legitimate interest in the Material published on the website simply can not be Treaties as collateral damage to the claims of the bank. “

Meanwhile, a coalition of media and public rights interests filed friend-of-the-court briefings on Tuesday, urging the court to reconsider its order. The group of attorneys EFF, ACLU, Public Citizen, and several news organizations, “Ars Technical reports that the Los Angeles Times, Associated Press, the Hearst Corporation, Scripps, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of Press and The Bill of Media Citizens.

The group of lawyers argue that the authority of his amicus curiae resides in the 1971 documents from the Pentagon’s decision, which confirmed the strength of the First Amendment right to freedom of expression, even when issues of national security. “The [First] Amendment prohibits prior restraints in nearly all circumstances, even when national security may be at risk even when the source documents obtained illegally,” said attorney Thomas Burke and colleagues.

“If Wikileaks is shut down, the ability of the Public Citizen” to access the complainants of “information” will be significantly impaired, “said Peter Lurie, WikiLeaks used widely in his work for the public health of citizens political wing.

“This is a case that presents a conflict between an individual’s right of privacy against the ability of the press to publish private information about individuals,” said William Briggs, who represents Julius Baer. “I believe that the privacy of individuals are superior to the rights of right of the press to report that information for reasons of identity theft. If customers in the financial industry do not believe that your information is protected, these institutions could get out of business. “