–which can’t be found using that domain address since a judge’s ruling last week, but which can still be viewed at, its IP address, and at mirror sites (,, and–permits anyone to post documents and other leaked material exposing unethical or illegal corporate and government behavior. A bank employee posted documents on the site purporting to disclose how Julius Baer Bank & Trust assists in money laundering and tax evasion. Last week, in a lawsuit brought by the bank, a federal district court judge in San Francisco ordered the domain name disabled and locked to prevent its transfer to another domain name registrar. As a New York Times article reports, the judge’s order order “had the effect of locking the front door to the site — a largely ineffectual action that kept back doors to the site, and several copies of it, available to sophisticated Web users who knew where to look . . . The feebleness of the action suggests that the bank, and the judge, did not understand how the domain system works, or how quickly Web communities will move to counter actions they see as hostile to free speech online.”

The judge’s permanent injunction and temporary restraining order, issued without accompanying analysis of the free speech issues, violate the First Amendment. It is hard to fathom why the judge believed these acts of censorship to be legal. The Times articles notes that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected prior restraint of speech in the Pentagon Papers case in 1971, notwithstanding the Nixon administration’s argument that publication threatened our national security. (Every semester presents an opportunity to tell students that, because of the Pentagon Papers case, many people of my generation will forever view government claims that information must be suppressed on grounds of national security with profound skepticism.) Even if Julius Baer Bank & Trust has a legitimate trade secret interest in preventing disclosure–an argument not raised in the Time’s article–then shutting down the website or disabling the domain name would not be appropriate remedies. This is a bad decision that should be overturned on appeal; the Internet has already rendered it moot.

UPDATES: A New York Times editorial on this story and Citizen Media Media Law Project analysis of the legal issues.

3 thoughts on “”

  1. America (sadly) has come to expect a certain level of deceit from corporations, but I feel as though the government should be moving toward a reputation of open communication and trust from citizens. After reading some of the internet censorship links from wikileaks I realize that America is rather loose with online censorship because in countries such as China, censorship has proven to be basically pointless. It is still surprising to see the level of ignorance with which the people assumed that disabling the domain name would hide their tracks and solve their problems.

  2. Awesome blog! Is your theme custom made or did you download it from somewhere?
    A design like yours with a few simple adjustements would really make my blog stand out.
    Please let me know where you got your design. With

  3. of course like your website however you need to test the spelling on several
    of your posts. Many of them are rife with spelling issues and I in finding it very bothersome to inform the reality on the other hand I’ll definitely come back again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *