Tuesday, February 26, 2008
News
Public Citizen and CFAC seek to overturn court orders shuttering wikileaks.org
San Francisco--Public Citizen and the California First Amendment Coalition, in pleadings filed in federal court today, seek to overturn injunctions that have shut down wikileaks.org, a whistleblower website
CFAC and Public Citizen argue that the court did not have jurisdiction in the case, and therefore had no power to issue a temporary restraining order against wikileaks and a permanent injunction against wikileaks’ internet domain name registrar. The organizations also argue that, even if the court had jurisdiction, both court orders are invalid under the First Amendment.
Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. CFAC is a free speech and open-government advocacy group with offices in San Rafael, CA. Here’s the Public Citizen/CFAC brief.
CFAC and Public Citizen are seeking to intervene as parties in the lawsuit filed by Bank Julius Bear, a Swiss bank, in federal district court in San Francisco. The case has drawn attention because of the court’s unorthodox order, directing the disabling of the wikileaks.org domain, thereby effectively shuttering the site.
Other briefs filed today include a submission by the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and a “friend of the court” brief signed by (among others), the Los Angeles Times, Hearst Corporation (publisher of the San Francisco Chronicle), Gannett Co., Inc., the Associated Press, E.W. Scripps Co., the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Citizen Media Law Project.
Many of the documents posted on Wikileaks are aimed at exposing unethical behavior in governments and corporations around the world. According to the site, it “provides a forum for the entire global community to relentlessly examine any document for its credibility, plausibility, veracity and validity.”
“Communities can interpret leaked documents and explain their relevance to the public,” the site continues. “If a document comes from the Chinese government, the entire Chinese dissident community and diaspora can freely scrutinize and discuss it; if a document arrives from Iran, the entire Farsi community can analyze it and put it in context.”
The Swiss bank claims that one of the bank’s former employees, a Swiss national, posted documents on Wikileaks that embarrass the company and harm the privacy interests of its clients. The suit was filed against both wikileaks--which thus far has not appeared to defend itself in the case--and against Dynadot, the site’s domain registrar.
Not only do the court’s order violate the Web site’s right to free speech but they also show the dangers of when a court moves too quickly to grant a restraining order in a First Amendment case, said Paul Alan Levy, a Public Citizen attorney. “The court’s lack of jurisdiction would have been obvious if the judge had been given time to think about the case, instead of being rushed into judgment,” Levy said.
“In shutting down this Web site through an unlawful prior restraint, the court has muzzled a very important voice in the fight against corporate and government misdeeds,” said Peter Scheer, executive director of CFAC. Scheer said wikileaks, which is less than a year old, is a valuable resource for journalists and has already posted documents that have been the basis for important national news stories.
Attorneys for Public Citizen and CFAC are Public Citizen’s Levy, in Washington, DC, and San Francisco media attorney Karl Olson, a partner in Levy Ram & Olson.
CONTACT:
For more information, call:
Peter Scheer, CFAC, 415-460-5060
Joe Newman, Public Citizen, 202-588-7703
Permalink
Social Bookmarking
