Decius wrote:
These companies are helping Lieberman undermine the rule of law.

I'm with you, regarding Lieberman.

However, I don't blame for-profit companies for distancing themselves from WikiLeaks. Freedom applies to those companies as well, and if they don't want to risk controversy, it's their right (not to mention, good business), and I don't equate them with Lieberman. It doesn't matter whether the pressure (real or perceived) comes from general public opinion, the media, or grandstanding elected officials; companies trying to make money don't need bad press, and being associated with WikiLeaks right now brings too much heat. This applies even more to corporations that are publicly held, because the primary responsibility is to generate profit for the stockholders, not to take public stands on political issues, especially those that are extremely controversial. Besides, the individual human beings who are the owners/stockholders, board members, officers, etc. are still free to take political stands as private citizens.

Supporting the right of an organization to do what WikiLeaks did is not the same thing as supporting what WikiLeaks did.

Stefanie wrote:
I'm with you, regarding Lieberman.

However, I don't blame for-profit companies for distancing themselves from WikiLeaks... If they don't want to risk controversy, it's their right... companies trying to make money don't need bad press, and being associated with WikiLeaks right now brings too much heat.

You're right in a sense - Visa, Mastercard, and Amazon are victims here.

The reason continuing to process payments for Wikileaks brings heat is because Lieberman brought heat. He raised this issue publicly and promoted the idea that the public ought to insist that companies distance themselves from Wikileaks. He basically told the press to go find companies that are doing this and ask them why and quote them on it. The media complied - they even went after companies that have nothing to do with Wikileaks without checking their facts. These companies faced reprisals, real market consequences stemming from bad press, if they did not comply with Lieberman's "request."

As has been raised in many places, the credit card companies are still processing payments for the KKK. No one seems to care about that, in spite of the number of times that the issue has been raised, because the people raising the issue are not powerful enough that the media telegraphs their opinions.

The reason Lieberman's opinions matter is because he is a United States Senator.

So there you have it. Lieberman is using the power of his public office to threaten businesses that refuse to comply with his demand to distance themselves from an organization that, like it or not, probably hasn't broken the law and which is engaged in actions that are probably protected by the Constitution.

(And to make matters worse, these companies were also hit with DDOS attacks!)

The power of the United States Senate is not supposed to be used in this way. The power of the Senate is supposed to be exercised through due process of law. So the fact that this is happening this way is a real problem - this was a significant abuse of power.

However, the only way that we can combat this public perception problem is to present another side to the coin. To make it clear that we don't think that this is how business ought to be done in America, and that we support companies that have the spine to refuse to comply with requests like this, which should never have been made in the first place.

Visa, Mastercard, and Amazon had a choice. They chose wrong. You cannot simultaneously claim that its reasonable for people to be upset with these companies for doing business with Wikileaks but its not reasonable for people to be upset with these companies for refusing to do business with Wikileaks.

If we don't push back against these companies no one will be able to host anything controversial on the Internet in the future.

Decius wrote:
You cannot simultaneously claim that its reasonable for people to be upset with these companies for doing business with Wikileaks but its not reasonable for people to be upset with these companies for refusing to do business with Wikileaks.

You're exactly right, but these companies are of the opinion that they'll catch much less flak by distancing themselves from WikiLeaks.

Decius wrote:
Visa, Mastercard, and Amazon had a choice. They chose wrong.

Time will tell.

Decius wrote:
The reason Lieberman's opinions matter is because he is a United States Senator.

The power of the United States Senate is not supposed to be used in this way.

However, the only way that we can combat this public perception problem is to present another side to the coin.

I agree that the other side (the "pro free speech" side) of the argument must be presented (quickly and adamantly), but we shouldn't lose focus. In this specific example, Lieberman is the problem, not MasterCard.

On a side note, I would also suggest that term limits would help to curb such abuses, by never allowing individuals to become so entrenched in elected offices that they amass so much power and influence over a period of decades, but that doesn't address the immediate situation.

Decius wrote:
If we don't push back against these companies no one will be able to host anything controversial on the Internet in the future.

Agreed [with the "pushing back" part, not the "companies" part]. For example, one unconstitutional gun law passes, then another, and pretty soon, the people are used to their Second Amendment rights being violated. Now, the same thing could happen with our First Amendment rights. If we let this attack on WikiLeaks slide, then someone will push the envelope even further, next time (actually, it has already started). But, just as some don't think we should have the right to arm ourselves, some don't think we should have the right to speak freely or to have a free press. They won't come out and say that, of course. They'll just re-interpret the Constitution to fit their needs and tell you that you simply don't know how to read it. And, as always, they'll use words such as "safety" and "security" in order to justify every violation of our rights.

Our rights can be eroded only when the people stand on the sidelines and allow these erosion to occur. Sadly, we have too many citizens who don't seem to care about the First Amendment, Second Amendment, or any other of our Constitutional rights, and long as they feel "safe."

(Yes, it was just a matter of time before I brought up the Second Amendment, but it's a valid comparison to what's going on now with the First Amendment.)