# The Wikileaks.org case. Freedom of speech vs freedom to money laundering. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 2, 2008, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wikileaks-org-case-freedom-of-speech-vs-freedom-to-money-laundering/439802 "2008-03-02T02:50:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wikileaks-org-case-freedom-of-speech-vs-freedom-to-money-laundering/439802/1 "2008-03-02T02:50:10Z")
First some background: A wiki is software that allows users to create, edit, and link web pages easily. Wikis are often used to create collaborative websites and to power community websites. These wiki websites are often also referred to as wikis; for example, Wikipedia is one of the best known wikis. (The above was quoted from Wikipedia. šŸ™‚ ) [Wikileaks.org](http://Wikileaks.org) follow the model of Wikipedia but now the powers that be suddenly found what happens when the collaborative power of whistle blowers that nowadays have harder access to the corporate media get into the act. So when a swiss bank preferred by the mega wealthy found themselves having documents that show evidence of money laundering in the Cayman islands in [Wikileaks.org](http://Wikileaks.org), the bank did not investigate the evildoers, they found it was better to shut down [Wikileaks.org](http://Wikileaks.org): [http://www.efluxmedia.com/news\_Wikileaks\_Case\_PR\_Disaster\_for\_Swiss\_Bank\_14591.html](http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Wikileaks_Case_PR_Disaster_for_Swiss_Bank_14591.html) > [@](#): > > The bank which sued and managed to shut down DNS access to an anonymous whistleblower website is now in some serious PR problems. The Julius Baer bank in Switzerland, a favorite bank for the mega-wealthy across the world, filed a complaint earlier this month against the site and its US-based host Dynadot for posting several hundred of the bankā€™s documents. > > Some of those documents, posted by a former bank employee, allegedly reveal that Julius Baer was involved in offshore money laundering and tax evasion in the Cayman Islands for customers in several countries, including the U.S. The documents leaked on the embattled site contain numerous references to the bankā€™s former vice president in the Caymans, Rudolf Elmer, but itā€™s unknown whether he is the whistleblower. > > Now, instead of the information disappearing, as the bank would have wanted, it has actually been read by probably 100 times more people than if they would have ignored the posting. In fact, I never have heard of Wikileaks before this scandal, and odds are that neither did you. This situation is known as the ā€œStreisand effect,ā€ after Barbra Streisandā€™s 2003 lawsuit seeking to remove satellite photos of her house in Malibu, California. > > In addition to attracting attention to the leaked documents, the entire anti-censorship community has rallied behind Wikileaks which will have a significant effect on both the lawsuitā€™s outcome and the bankā€™s future reputation. The judge who issued the ruling is also under heavy fire. Gee I wonder why. The good news though is that pressure from many in the legal, media and Internet rights communities made the judge change his mind: [http://www.efluxmedia.com/news\_Judge\_Reconsiders\_Orders\_Meant\_to\_Disable\_Wikileaks\_14650.html](http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Judge_Reconsiders_Orders_Meant_to_Disable_Wikileaks_14650.html) > [@](#): > > A U.S. federal district court judge on Friday reversed two controversial orders meant to disable Wikileaks, an anonymous whistleblower site, which means that the site can get its .org domain back. > > U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White issued the orders two weeks ago after Wikileaks posted internal documents which showed that Swiss bank, Julius Baer Group was involved in offshore money laundering and tax evasion in the Cayman Islands for customers in several countries, including the U.S. Wikileaks claimed the documents had been leaked by a bank employee. The Swiss bank claimed in its complaint that Wikileaks published hundreds of illegally obtained documents and confidential and copyrighted information belonging to the bank. > > One of the judgeā€™s orders asked San Mateo, California-based Dynadot, which hosts [Wikileaks.org](http://Wikileaks.org) to make the address inaccessible and to prevent the owner from transferring it to any other service. The other ruling demanded Wikileaks and a host of third parties refrain from posting any additional documents or linking to any documents that had already been disclosed. Wikileaks called the U.S. order ā€œclearly unconstitutionalā€ and said it ā€œexceeds jurisdictionā€ a press statement on its site wrote at the time. > > Whiteā€™s decision to shut down the site brought strong protests among free-speech advocates and news media organizations. On Friday, he dropped the injunction that got the site offline, citing First Amendment concerns and questions about legal jurisdiction. While this is good now, it is disturbing to me that this judge was given very bad advice at the beginning or he just plainly showed incompetency, what do the legal eagles in the SDMB think? What the judge did was justified? (This goes for the shutdown as well as the reversal.) And, it is ok for corporations to make the point that privacy protection laws triumph over free speech laws? What if the right of the state to prosecute fraud is being affected? ---
**Author:** ![atomicbadgerrace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e7dd6/32.png) [@atomicbadgerrace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/atomicbadgerrace)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wikileaks-org-case-freedom-of-speech-vs-freedom-to-money-laundering/439802/2 "2008-03-02T06:25:24Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] And, it is ok for corporations to make the point that privacy protection laws triumph over free speech laws? What if the right of the state to prosecute fraud is being affected? [/QUOTE] I canā€™t say that Iā€™ve thought about this well enough to make a well informed opinion on the site. At first glance, itā€™s very well put together and provides a great wealth of information already. Iā€™ll have to mull it over for a while. That said, I can probably give you a good indicator of my feelings. Iā€™m all about promoting transparency. That said, I think itā€™s difficult to judge the site as a whole; but rather, each document posted is going to have its own moral pros and cons. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wikileaks-org-case-freedom-of-speech-vs-freedom-to-money-laundering/439802/3 "2008-03-02T14:40:49Z")
1. Free speech doesnā€™t give you the right to violate the law. Presumably, the original request for an injunction asserted that [wikileaks.org](http://wikileaks.org) was violating a law by posting the documents in question. It appears that [wikileaks.org](http://wikileaks.org) managed to convince the judge that they were doing no such thing. 2. My take on it is that [wikileaks.org](http://wikileaks.org) had incompetent, or at the least, uncompetent legal help at the time of the first hearing on the injunction. Once they were able to obtain competent legal help, they were able to establish that the arguments originally presented to the judge were not sufficient to establish the right to an injunction. There is a specific rubric a judge uses to determine if an injunction will issue. Obviously, at the first hearing, [wikileaks.org](http://wikileaks.org) failed to convince the judge that the rubric shouldnā€™t result in an injunction. 3. A federal judge isnā€™t expected to know all the law on all things. Thatā€™s why the parties offer legal arguments in support of their requests. The bankā€™s lawyers provided the basis for an injunction in their petition and subsequent filings, probably supplemented by things said at the time of the first hearing on their request. These were sufficient to establish that an injunction should issue temporarily. Among the things they would have had to show are: likelihood of success on the merits of their claim and ā€œirreparable harmā€ if the activity to be enjoined continues. You can read the basics [at Wikipedia: Preliminary Injunction](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preliminary_injunction). So, no, not an incompetent judge. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wikileaks-org-case-freedom-of-speech-vs-freedom-to-money-laundering/439802/4 "2008-03-02T15:06:41Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] So, no, not an incompetent judge. [/QUOTE] Yes, but on both the balance of harm and the public disservice arguments, I fail to see how completely shutting the site down is justifiable. Why not just order the documents removed? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wikileaks-org-case-freedom-of-speech-vs-freedom-to-money-laundering/439802/5 "2008-03-02T16:24:12Z")
Good info there **DSYoungEsq**. AFAIK the incompetent or uncompetent (is that a word?) was caused by the very nature of the wiki, as dissidents and contributors have sometimes very good reasons to remain in hiding. It looks to me that the bank lawyers saw that weakness and did use it to their advantage. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wikileaks-org-case-freedom-of-speech-vs-freedom-to-money-laundering/439802/6 "2008-03-02T16:32:01Z")
Missed the darn edit window. AFAIK the incompetent or uncompetent (is that a word?) legal help was caused by the very nature of the wiki, as dissidents and contributors have sometimes very good reasons to remain in hiding. It looks to me that the bank lawyers saw that weakness and did use it to their advantage. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wikileaks-org-case-freedom-of-speech-vs-freedom-to-money-laundering/439802/7 "2008-03-02T20:09:32Z")
[QUOTE=Zakalwe] Yes, but on both the balance of harm and the public disservice arguments, I fail to see how completely shutting the site down is justifiable. Why not just order the documents removed? [/QUOTE] Itā€™s quite possible that no one showed up on behalf of [wikileaks.org](http://wikileaks.org) at the first hearing. Iā€™ve not delved into the whole mess to see. If no one showed, the judge will be inclined to grant the request of the petitioner unless itā€™s clearly unwarranted. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2008, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wikileaks-org-case-freedom-of-speech-vs-freedom-to-money-laundering/439802/8 "2008-03-08T23:18:12Z")
Update: [http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/0-0&fp=47d311d74e692e35&ei=ZBzTR\_XiFo7u-wG7s9jLAw&url=http%3A//www.forbes.com/facesinthenews/2008/03/06/wikileaks-switzerland-tax-face-markets-cx\_ll\_0306autofacescan01.html&cid=1137340527](http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/0-0&fp=47d311d74e692e35&ei=ZBzTR_XiFo7u-wG7s9jLAw&url=http%3A//www.forbes.com/facesinthenews/2008/03/06/wikileaks-switzerland-tax-face-markets-cx_ll_0306autofacescan01.html&cid=1137340527) > [@](#): > > Swiss bank Julius Baer has finally dropped its lawsuit against the whistle-blower Web site Wikileaks, after it failed in its quest to have incriminating documents, accusing the bank of international tax fraud, taken down. > > Zurich-based Julius Baer confirmed Thursday it had stopped legal proceedings against Wikileaks, after United States District Judge Jeffrey White overruled an earlier decision to freeze and disable the Wikileaks domain name. According to the Web site, which was launched last year by a mysterious group of international dissidents, Judge White ā€œhad the maturity to reverse his earlier rulings, having realized that those rulings trampled the First Amendment.ā€ And it seems that other cases of abuse in tax heavens like in the Cayman islands will get more attention: > [@](#): > > The case comes at a time when other whistle-blowers are calling time on tax evasion in fiscal havens such as Liechtenstein and even Switzerland. A major German crackdown on 1,400 clients at Liechtensteinā€™s LGT Group is now underway, after an insider at the bank leaked details to the German authorities. (See ā€œThe End Is Nigh For Liechtensteinā€) > > There will be more leaks to come, according to Richard Murphy, of Tax Research U.K. ā€œLife is pretty tough for some people in these tax havens,ā€ he told [Forbes.com](http://Forbes.com). He said that poverty and drugs were a problem for locals living in the Cayman Islands, who were struggling to keep up with the wealthy elite, and that such resentment fueled the desire to blow the whistle. > > But Murphy believed that tax dodgers would not be brought to justice unless there was the political will to act on already-existing legislation. And now that France, Britain, the United States and a handful of others have joined Germany in cracking down on Liechtenstein, it may not be long before the Cayman Islands and Switzerland suffer a few more Wikileaks. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2008, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wikileaks-org-case-freedom-of-speech-vs-freedom-to-money-laundering/439802/9 "2008-03-10T03:32:04Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] 1. Free speech doesnā€™t give you the right to violate the law. Presumably, the original request for an injunction asserted that [wikileaks.org](http://wikileaks.org) was violating a law by posting the documents in question. It appears that [wikileaks.org](http://wikileaks.org) managed to convince the judge that they were doing no such thing. 2. My take on it is that [wikileaks.org](http://wikileaks.org) had incompetent, or at the least, uncompetent legal help at the time of the first hearing on the injunction. Once they were able to obtain competent legal help, they were able to establish that the arguments originally presented to the judge were not sufficient to establish the right to an injunction. There is a specific rubric a judge uses to determine if an injunction will issue. Obviously, at the first hearing, [wikileaks.org](http://wikileaks.org) failed to convince the judge that the rubric shouldnā€™t result in an injunction. 3. A federal judge isnā€™t expected to know all the law on all things. Thatā€™s why the parties offer legal arguments in support of their requests. The bankā€™s lawyers provided the basis for an injunction in their petition and subsequent filings, probably supplemented by things said at the time of the first hearing on their request. These were sufficient to establish that an injunction should issue temporarily. Among the things they would have had to show are: likelihood of success on the merits of their claim and ā€œirreparable harmā€ if the activity to be enjoined continues. You can read the basics [at Wikipedia: Preliminary Injunction](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preliminary_injunction). So, no, not an incompetent judge. [/QUOTE] So offshore money and laundering are OK, But it should be against the law to release info showing they are crooks? Strange thinking there. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2008, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wikileaks-org-case-freedom-of-speech-vs-freedom-to-money-laundering/439802/10 "2008-03-10T14:15:33Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] Itā€™s quite possible that no one showed up on behalf of [wikileaks.org](http://wikileaks.org) at the first hearing. Iā€™ve not delved into the whole mess to see. If no one showed, the judge will be inclined to grant the request of the petitioner unless itā€™s clearly unwarranted. [/QUOTE] From what I read, that was just the case. Apparently due in part to the wiki nature of the site, there was trouble at first determining just **who** was supposed to show up and claim to be the responsible person/s and put up a defense. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2008, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wikileaks-org-case-freedom-of-speech-vs-freedom-to-money-laundering/439802/11 "2008-03-10T15:34:21Z")
I think itā€™s pretty clear that Wikileaks did not have adequate counsel at the outset. However, it _does_ seem surprising to me that the judge would not have general awareness of the significant First Amendment implications of the injunction. This is not a highly specialised are of the law. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2008, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wikileaks-org-case-freedom-of-speech-vs-freedom-to-money-laundering/439802/12 "2008-03-11T09:13:41Z")
**The judge did not shut down the site.** What he did was a lot less effective: He ordered the company that sold Wikileaks their [wikileaks.org](http://wikileaks.org) domain name to remove the name from their records and, therefore, effectively limit access to the site to people who knew the numerical IP address. Itā€™s more or less equivalent to the judge ordering a phone book company to remove the listing of a certain groupā€™s phone number. The phone number still works, but you have to use some other way of finding it. Needless to say, the Wikileaks IP address became an instant Internet celebrity. Itā€™s amazing how quickly a string of four little numbers can spread through sites like Digg and Reddit. The Streisand Effect works. ---
**Author:** ![Mops](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mops/32/16494_2.png) [@Mops](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mops)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2008, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wikileaks-org-case-freedom-of-speech-vs-freedom-to-money-laundering/439802/13 "2008-03-11T12:59:53Z")
Iā€™d like to question the premise that the issue is ā€˜freedom to money launderingā€™. My suspicion is that Julius Baer (the plaintiff) have been boneheaded in presenting their case, at least to the public. On perusing some documents on the [wikileaks.org](http://wikileaks.org) site (it is accessible again) it seems that at least most of the content is not whistleblowing but kookery. For example, [this](http://www.wikileaks.org/w/images/Angela-merkel_document.jpg) document (purportedly a letter from Julius Baer to German Chancellor Angela Merkel) is, from internal evidence, a really amateurish fake. [This](http://wikileaks.cx/leak/weisung-nrf-4.pdf) (purportedly an internal German military memo - no internal evidence against that that I can see) about organizational matters of the German component of a NATO force is so sinister and secret that itā€™s even been cc:ed to the offices of the Protestant and Catholic military bishops :smack: On whistleblowing and money laundering: Iā€™d expect someone with real documents on criminal activity to send them to the relevant prosecutorsā€™ office(s), someone with fake documents to post it on such a site instead.