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.)

RE: Lieberman undeterred