Was it ethical for Amazon to harm Wikileaks before any government conviction? Do that make Amazon above the rule of law?

Similar questions: ethical Amazon harm Wikileaks government conviction make rule law.

Nope. It makes them a company that can do what the company wants to do. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." .

Like the bus companies in Montgomery. No ethicial consideration, our terms don't let us serve colored people. BrianM 12 months ago .

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Sniff. Ha."Like the bus companies in Montgomery.

" That, dear , is a "false analogy. " The bus companies which all of the negroes/blacks/African Americans boycotted were exactly directing--by law--that the darker-skinned citizens had to surrender seats to any lighter-skinned person who came on board.It was what we call a "race-based" law. Amazon is merely enforcing it's Terms Of Service, fairly, evenly, and if you want to get technical, Julian Assange is a honky.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I thought the response of the French host (OVH) of Wikileaks was an interesting contrast to Amazon. Quoted below:"As far as OVH, the technical provider, is concerned we have done the utmost to clarify the legal situation of the site.... We have tried to be as transparent as possible," said the company based at Roubaix near Lille. "It's neither for the political world nor for OVH to call for or to decide on a site's closure, but for the justice system," OVH's managing director Octave Klaba has said."That's how it should work under the rule of law.

"Anyway thanks for all with open minds and comments. BrianM 12 months ago .

They can do what they want to do as a private company, and refuse service to anyone, especially someone who can cause damage to them technologically and financially. It has nothing to do with being above the law.

Enough power to make effective business decisions, as they have the legal right to.

Amazon had terms of service and wanted only original works on the database. The stolen documents were not original. They enforced their TOS.

They do with our answers too.

And the New York Time published the same documents. Should their server shut them down? BrianM 12 months ago .

The times has their own server and their own TOS (terms of service) so that is another discussion. Actually my beef is with the USA employees that leaked. I care very little about the foreign organizations that publish the stuff.By that time it is out and will never get put back in its cage.

But if Amazon has rules, why not let them enforce? Some years ago they published list of CIA case officers. But once the names got out - it was too late.

Lots lost jobs.

Like the bus companies in Montgomery. No ethical consideration, our terms don't let us serve colored people. "No.

Like refusing to print copy right protected materials. And the bus companies did serve blacks. I think this comparison misses the mark.

I'll agree on the copyright material analogy. Shouldn't the courts be the arbitrar on that kind of dispute? If ink companies refuse to sell to those they deem copyright violators, it gives them undue power.

Similarly Amazon action against Wikileaks but not the NY Times is a judgement based on political point of view not a legal decsion. It's beyond commerce. BrianM 12 months ago .

We will have to wait for the legal decision. But Amazon had a legal way to get out of its contract. It took it.

Why not? One interesting fact is that no government publication is ever given a copy right. The American Almanac was a direct reprint of a government publication.

Made money, too. But it is time for us to sort out if we want the government to keep secrets or not. If we do, we protect them.

If not, then we go that way. It is a democracy, after all.

By the way, I hear that Paypal has closed the account for Wikileaks for sending in "donations". Just as well.

If you agree they should be censored, that's true. BrianM 12 months ago .

Some thoughts:The "rule of law" is all very well and good but there's such a thing as "ethics" too. The latest news I heard today was that the Taliban were quite happy to learn from Wikileaks about the identity of Afghan civilians who are working with the western troops, more or less you'd call them "spies". Taliban says they'll track them down and kill them.

How convenient for that western dude to supply confidential information to the enemies. Obviously lives are being put at risk due to the stupidity of such mindless persons. I'm sure you can see the falsehood of 'spreading the truth', so-called, by divulging important info which endangers the lives of many.

;-) ... Wake up and smell the coffee! My opinion only.

I will never make another purchase from Amazon for their decision to end their relationship with Wikileaks. " "Isn't it hypocritical of Amazon to harm Wikileaks when Amazon has benefited from the open internet? " "Now we know why Amazon booted Wikileaks off so quickly.

The US government is a big Amazon Web customer.

I will never make another purchase from Amazon for their decision to end their relationship with Wikileaks.

Now we know why Amazon booted Wikileaks off so quickly. The US government is a big Amazon Web customer.

I'll agree on the copyright material analogy. Shouldn't the courts be the arbitrar on that kind of dispute? If ink companies refuse to sell to those they deem copyright violators, it gives them undue power.

Similarly Amazon action against Wikileaks but not the NY Times is a judgement based on political point of view not a legal decsion. It's beyond commerce. BrianM 58 months ago.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.