posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 03:53 PM
reply to post by samkent
I respectfully disagree.
First, the Supreme Court has already ruled years ago [during the NY Times case] that publishers
of news-worthy, accurate information are not
liable. The only person that has actually committed a crime thus far is whomever [thought to be Manning] stole the information originally. The thief
is liable, not the publisher.
Second, Mastercard, Visa, et al, may not want to do business with Wikileaks. That is their right. What is not their right is to not allow people to
spend their money however they see fit.
Forget Wikileaks for a second, what if Mastercard decides they are against abortion. Do you think that they then should be allowed to prevent people
from donating to pro-abortion organizations? I should hope not. The same theory can be applied to anything -- religion, gay rights, etc.
If we learned nothing from 9/11, I at least had hoped we learned not to give away even more of our rights in order to fight the bigger fight. We have
a right to support, with our own money, any organization that is legal. As of right now, WikiLeaks is perfectly legal.
The Supreme Court case can be reviewed here:
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court per curiam decision. The ruling made it possible
for the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censure.
edit on 9-12-2010 by lpowell0627 because: Source of course.