How free is too free when it comes to free speech? This is the question that has been raised multiple times over the last few months as the controversial website, WikiLeaks, has published secret government documents ranging from the complete logs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables containing top secret information. Wikileaks says they are releasing the information to promote freedom of speech and government transparency. The questions remain, however: is this the right way to go about it and, even if it was not, do the web service providers have a right to block access to Wikileaks?
While little of the information in the recent diplomatic cable release was terribly shocking, much of it was potentially offensive to foreign governments and has the potential to damage some long-standing diplomatic relationships the U.S. maintains. The war logs show much information we already knew about the war, but also reveal some new information regarding civilian deaths in the wars. None of the information as of yet has created a massive uproar or revolution against government. But it has raised some interesting questions regarding government openness.
This article at ReadWriteWeb asks about the many web services (Amazon, PayPal, EveryDNS, Visa, Mastercard) that have blacklisted WikiLeaks from using their services for “illegal activity.” There remains a deeper question here: is it illegal? As of yet, a court has yet to pass any judgement on this question. This then brings into question the presumption of innocence in the United States. Are these businesses denying WikiLeaks a constitutional right? Are we bringing into question the true freedom of the internet?
There are many more questions than answers presented in this post, I know. That’s because I don’t know the answers. I can’t tell you. I’m neither a legal expert or a web expert. What I do know is that the WikiLeaks scandal presents many issues regarding media freedom. The media industry in the U.S. is dependent on this freedom. Are we now questioning it in the name of national security?

