Amazon Believes In Free Speech For Pedophiles, But Not For Wikileaks?
from the oddities... dept
With Amazon’s decision to give in to political pressure and stop hosting Wikileaks, some are recalling that just a few weeks ago, after people found a pro-pedophilia book being sold via Amazon, that Amazon came out with the following statement:
“Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable.”
Apparently, that does not apply to hosting certain websites, however.
Filed Under: censorship, free speech, wikileaks
Companies: amazon, wikileaks
Comments on “Amazon Believes In Free Speech For Pedophiles, But Not For Wikileaks?”
Not that it is right but corporate decisions can change pretty quick when you have senior senators calling your executives asking for a “favor”.
This is partly Amazon’s fault though one wonders what kind of threats (expressed or implied) is Amazon afraid of.
Re: ... or what kind of favors they're getting in return
…..
books vs hosting
Yes, I can actually empathize with Amazon’s position on this.
Providing a platform for books to be sold to the general public is a service were liability residing with the author rather than the seller has not been challenged (in my memory, I don’t have any proof for this, although I can’t recall anything happening to the contrary).
However, the same can’t be said by any stretch of the imagination for hosting website content. Should Amazon risks its entire business on hosting some content, arguably nowhere near its core business?
All of this, however, doesn’t mean I don’t wish to live in a world where Amazon can just come out and say: “Amazon believes it is censorship not to host certain web content simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable.”
Re: books vs hosting
Providing a platform for books to be sold to the general public is a service were liability residing with the author rather than the seller has not been challenged (in my memory, I don’t have any proof for this, although I can’t recall anything happening to the contrary).
However, the same can’t be said by any stretch of the imagination for hosting website content. Should Amazon risks its entire business on hosting some content, arguably nowhere near its core business?
Section 230 of the CDA says you’re wrong: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/US_Internet_Law/Section_230
Amazon does not have liability.
Re: Re: books vs hosting
I think you read what he said wrong. Section 230 of the CDA certainly says Amazon would not be liable, but it doesn’t mean they won’t be challenged.
In addition, with ICE taking down domains recently, and Amazon having a .com domain (like the others) I wouldn’t doubt that they are aware that the government would love to just pull away the Amazon.com domain even for just a few minutes considering how much it would cost them (aside from legal costs)
Re: Re: Re: books vs hosting
ICE has also been overstepping the boundaries of the law by doing that, as said by numerous commentators on both the liberal and conservative side of things.
They are just WAITING for the ICE to be slapped down over this bullplop!
Re: Re: Re:2 books vs hosting
Bear in mind that this matter is wholly removed from the one associated with the recent seizure of domain names.
Here Amazon could very well have found itself the subject of a criminal indictment had it done nothing and allowed the information to remain on its servers.
Re: Re: Re:3 books vs hosting
I call bullshit!
Had Amazon upheld their service agreement/contract with their client “Wikileaks” they would face attorney generals who would be twisting laws to the breaking point in order to find something to charge Amazon with.
Seriously you f*cking coward, try harder.
Re: Re: Re:4 books vs hosting
Easy there tough guy…
He is partially right. Amazon.com is a US company. If there is a warrant out for the head of Wikileaks, and Wikileaks is in a bad eye of the US federal government, Amazon could face sanctions from not only the US but other countries for “aiding” a wanted criminal. it doesn’t even have to be anything to do with the leaking of information. not that it isn’t, but if you are wanted by interpol there are treaties we have in place for such things.
Re: Re: Re:5 books vs hosting
He’s wanted for rape. So basically you’re agreeing with Lobo Santo that the government would twist the law to go after Amazon, because their hosting service has absolutely no bearing on the arrest warrant for rape.
Re: Re: Re:6 books vs hosting
He’s not wanted for rape. There is no arrest warrant. Read better news sies.
Re: Re: Re:7 books vs hosting
It sure looks to me like there’s an arrest warrant.
Re: Re: Re:8 books vs hosting
It sure looks to me like there’s an arrest warrant.
It’s a “red notice”, not an “arrest warrant”.
You need to be careful about what sources you use for information.
Re: Re: Re:9 books vs hosting
“Definitions of red notice on the Web:
* International Wanted Notice: an Interpol notice describing a wanted person and asking that he or she be arrested with a view to extradition; a wanted notice that is issued by Interpol at the request of an Interpol member country and distributed to all member countries;”
If it walks like an arrest warrant, and quacks like an arrest warrant…
Re: Re: Re: books vs hosting
they can try to challenge all they want. a judge will never even glance at trying to challenge amazon on that stuff.
Re: Re: Re: books vs hosting
I think you read what he said wrong. Section 230 of the CDA certainly says Amazon would not be liable, but it doesn’t mean they won’t be challenged.
They could be “challenged” over books too.
Fail.
Re: Re: books vs hosting
Indeed!
Has this section of the CDA been respected recently, this blog alone has listed numerous cases in the recent past where companies/peoples/entities shouldnt have liability but get treated as such anyway. (for example, this article references section 230 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100919/02104911071/former-child-prostitute-sues-village-voice-for-aiding-abetting-via-sex-ads.shtml)
Disabling hosting or (I don’t know how it particularly went down) telling Wikileaks “sorry, we wish we could host this, but we’re not willing to take the risk and find out” seems to me like a perfectly reasonable descision to me.
Again, none of this implies whether I agree this is the correct / fair situation to be in.
Re: Re: Re: books vs hosting
telling Wikileaks “sorry, we wish we could host this, but we’re not willing to take the risk and find out” seems to me like a perfectly reasonable descision to me.
It may seem reasonable to you, but that doesn’t speak very well of you.
Again, none of this implies whether I agree this is the correct / fair situation to be in.
Yes, it does, despite your attempted denials.
Re: Re: books vs hosting
Section 230 may provide safe harbor is some situations, but I do not believe this is one of them once Amazon learned what was residing on its servers. By failing to act the company could very well have been subject to criminal prosecution, an unpleasant prospect for a company that makes its living as a merchant of goods.
I would be interested to hear the views of any attorneys familiar with national security laws and associated criminal prosecutions, and what advice they would have given Amazon once the matter was brought to its attention.
Re: Re: Re: books vs hosting
> Section 230 may provide safe harbor is some
> situations, but I do not believe this is one
> of them once Amazon learned what was residing
> on its servers.
Even if Section 230 failed, there’s still New York Times vs. Sullivan (commonly known as the “Pentagon Papers Case”). As long as Amazon had nothing to do with conspiring to illegally obtain the information from the source (which it didn’t), there’s no criminal liability for publishing classified information.
Re: Re: Re: books vs hosting
Section 230 may provide safe harbor is some situations, but I do not believe this is one of them once Amazon learned what was residing on its servers.
Curious what language in the statute leads you to this conclusion? You may be right, but I was under the impression that with 230, knowledge is not a factor (with the DMCA it is, but not with 230).
Re: Re: Re:2 books vs hosting
My comment was not meant to imply that under these circumstances the Section 230 safe harbor evaporates. It is likely still there. Rather, there are a host of other laws that would apply to this matter.
My apology for any confusion I may have caused.
Re: Re: Re:3 books vs hosting
Section 230 may provide safe harbor is some situations, but I do not believe this is one of them once Amazon learned what was residing on its servers.
Seems like a pretty clear statement to me.
My comment was not meant to imply that under these circumstances the Section 230 safe harbor evaporates
Seems clear to me that it did.
My apology for any confusion I may have caused.
The “confusion” was yours.
Re: Re: books vs hosting
Section 230 may provide safe harbor is some situations, but I do not believe this is one of them once Amazon learned what was residing on its servers. By failing to act the company could very well have been subject to criminal prosecution, an unpleasant prospect for a company that makes its living as a merchant of goods.
I would be interested to hear the views of any attorneys familiar with national security laws and associated criminal prosecutions, and what advice they would have given Amazon once the matter was brought to its attention.
Re: Re: books vs hosting
little mikee, you throw section 230 around a lot, but when Law Enforcement walks in with a warrant to take all of your servers into custody as evidence in a treason trial you would be thinking twice about how affective the argument for Section 230 will hold up when hundreds of your clients are complaining that they are down and threatening their own lawsuites against you.
And if you think the threat isn’t real, talk to CI-Host who had an entire Data Center shut down for days while that very arguement was being sorted out.
I applaud Amazon for considering the needs of the many of the arrogance of the one.
And the difference between Wikileaks and the books, the warrants for the book would specify the book and all copies of it. Amazon’s cloud doesn’t quite fit into the law’s current state, and while a Tech Savy judge may issue properly worded warrant, a judge looking to teach a lesson can still issue a LEGAL warrant and word is such that it shuts down the entire cloud.
Re: Re: Re: books vs hosting
Dude, no. Amazon has no liability for Wikileaks, as the owner of the website is an Australian. Are you seriously arguing that America has jurisdiction over Australia?
IF that’s the case, then why have the agents of the CIA circa 1975 not been charged with terrorism? Or the same in 1993, when they aided the IRA detonate aq bomb in MAnchester Arndale Centre.
You can’t have it both ways.
Re: Re: Re: books vs hosting
little mikee, you throw section 230 around a lot, but when Law Enforcement walks in with a warrant to take all of your servers into custody as evidence in a treason trial you would be thinking twice about how affective the argument for Section 230 will hold up when hundreds of your clients are complaining that they are down and threatening their own lawsuites against you.
I don’t get what you’re saying here. The Justice Department routinely ignores the laws it’s supposed to enforce (such as section 230)? Or section 230 doesn’t apply if the government is involved? It sucks to get sued / have property confiscated even if you win in the end? What is your point here?
Didn’t Amazon also cave to the protests and pull the book as well?
Re: Re:
Yeah, but only because a bunch of the credit card processing companies told them to pull the book or they would stop processing for them.
Many people don’t realize that the credit card processing companies and companies like AlertPay are now bending the arms of the people who use their services to remove ‘loli’ and other controversial content, which I think should be illegal.
These business, although private, should have to do business with anyone as long as the people in question are not doing something illegal in the country where they are based.
Re: Re: Re:
To make it clear…. I don’t think the CONTENT should be illegal, I mean the ARM-TWISTING should be illegal.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Aren’t there a vary limited number of credit card companies? Visa, Master Card, Discover, and American Express are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head. Since Amazon can’t depend on anything else, wouldn’t this qualify as monopolistic actions?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Those are the mothership companies as I like to call them. The true creditcard companies are the ones that do the processing. You can have a Visa card from 13 different banks with different rules and restrictions. The Processing companies are the ones that get the majority of the fees to do the processing of those payments for the vendor. (thats putting it in simple terms. It is actually quite abit more complicated than that).
I understand they said that one thing...
…But didn’t they mean another. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t they ultimately take down that e-book?
Typically more Free Speech corruption - Constitution must be rolling in its grave !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States
(seems a more reliable source of facts than here unfortunately)..
Quote:
Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, sexism, and other hate speech are generally permitted.
So by your first amendment, Amazon are not allowed to censor material just because people find it objectionable.
The definition also encompasses activities that are “dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State” and are intended to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population,”
Terrorism criminal Law, Patriot Act Title VIII:
The Government Speech Doctrine establishes that the government may censor speech when the speech is its own,…..Statements made by public employees pursuant to their official duties are not protected by the First Amendment from employer discipline as per the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos.
Re: Typically more Free Speech corruption - Constitution must be rolling in its grave !
“So by your first amendment, Amazon are not allowed to censor material just because people find it objectionable.”
Amazon, a private concern, can, the government (which is the point of the exercise) have a much more difficult time.
Re: Typically more Free Speech corruption - Constitution must be rolling in its grave !
First, the first amendment trumps the patriot act.
Second, the first amendment forbids the government from censoring speech, not privet companies.
Amazon is not legally wrong, they’re just morally wrong (and probably walking down a slope they can’t get back up).
Re: Re: Typically more Free Speech corruption - Constitution must be rolling in its grave !
“Amazon is not legally wrong, they’re just morally wrong (and probably walking down a slope they can’t get back up).”
I have to agree with that as the most sensible assessment so far. I don’t know if I’ll outright boycott Amazon, but they lost their spot in my heart. I’d have to really want something they had, or it would have to be a smokin deal, or I’ll vote with my wallet & buy elsewhere.
Re: Re: Typically more Free Speech corruption - Constitution must be rolling in its grave !
First, the first amendment trumps the patriot act.
That’s up to the man with the badge and the gun to decide. They tend not to think a lot of the first amendment.
Re: Typically more Free Speech corruption - Constitution must be rolling in its grave !
“So by your first amendment, Amazon are not allowed to censor material just because people find it objectionable.”
Damn it, Darryl, YOU’RE ALREADY WRONG! It’s the GOVERNMENT that cannot censor those things, not Amazon. The problem here is that it looks like the govt. MAY have coerced Amazon into doing this, and that blurs the line….
“The definition also encompasses activities that are “dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State” and are intended to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population,”
Terrorism criminal Law, Patriot Act Title VIII:”
What wikileaks did falls under NONE of those headings. The leaked documents of diplomacy cables does not endanger human life, publishing those documents is not illegal (as shown in the case of the Pentagon Papers), and they are certainly not designed to intimidate or coerce, but rather to reveal. Not sure what you’re going for here….
Re: Re: Typically more Free Speech corruption - Constitution must be rolling in its grave !
Damn it, Darryl, YOU’RE ALREADY WRONG!
And Darryl just loves copyright!
Abolish copyright.
Re: Typically more Free Speech corruption - Constitution must be rolling in its grave !
What do a kangaroo know about U.S. law?
Just askin 🙂
Re: Re: Typically more Free Speech corruption - Constitution must be rolling in its grave !
its
What does a kangaroo know about U.S. Law?
The answer is, it seems like alot more than alot of kangaroo’s in the US.
Free Speech does not apply to government employees, who are performing their official job.
Therefore, it is not censorship that the US is doing, it is enforcing its law about not allowing government employees to talk about what happens in their work.
Just like it is not allowed for the tax office to tell everyone what you earn, etc.
Alot of government information is about private people, and that is why stealing government information does damage to private people, that again, is why the government has a right to legally enforce their employees not to make public their day to day work information.
I just quoted directly from the constitution, and the law, and you guys are telling me im wrong, is very funny.
So if im wrong, with direct quotes, would that make the framers of my quotes wrong ?
Re: Re: Re: Typically more Free Speech corruption - Constitution must be rolling in its grave !
Free Speech does not apply to government employees, who are performing their official job.
Therefore, it is not censorship that the US is doing, it is enforcing its law about not allowing government employees to talk about what happens in their work.
Wikileaks is not a “government employee”. You’re on a roll today, aren’t you?
Re: Re: Re: Typically more Free Speech corruption - Constitution must be rolling in its grave !
I just quoted directly from the constitution, and the law, and you guys are telling me im wrong, is very funny.
So if im wrong, with direct quotes, would that make the framers of my quotes wrong ?
Including some quotes doesn’t automatically make everything else you say true. Only a real idiot could believe that it would. Congratulations.
Re: Typically more Free Speech corruption - Constitution must be rolling in its grave !
“intimidate or coerce a civilian population,”
Isn’t that what a police force generally does?
It didn't apply to the pedophile book either
Amazon pulled it only a couple of hours after making the announcement, leading to speculation that the announcement was a knee-jerk boilerplate Amazon sends out in the event of a complaint about any book (such as, say, a Tea Partier complaining about Amazon selling Obama’s book, or a fundamentalist complaining about Amazon selling books about Satanism) whereas the decision to pull the pedophilia manual was made by someone high-ranking enough to be able to use his own judgment.
When you get down to it, Amazon rolled right over on the pedophile book, too.
I wish people would stop citing the Constitution as if it actually meant something.
It was a grand old document, and we should respect it and let it rest in peace.
The future of information on the Internet has been shown to us by China; it is they, not America, who now set the pace, and we simply follow.
He is partially right. Amazon.com is a US company. If there is a warrant out for the head of Wikileaks, and Wikileaks is in a bad eye of the US federal government, Amazon could face sanctions from not only the US but other countries for “aiding” a wanted criminal. it doesn’t even have to be anything to do with the leaking of information. not that it isn’t, but if you are wanted by interpol there are treaties we have in place for such things.
That would appear to be a textbook case of prior restraint, no? Just because someone is accused of a crime does not restrict their right to speak on other topics, and certainly does not allow the US gov’t to threaten amazon over hosting that speech.
Section 230 Challenges
Y’all talk a lot about how Section 230 protects hosts and companies from law suits, and keeps them from being liable for this or that…
What you don’t talk about is what happens in the course of these types of cases.
In the case of Amazon caving on Wikileaks, consider this:
1) The government will determine if their is enough evidence to charge the owner with a crime, and then they will go to a jusge for a warrant for various things such as an arrest, and the siezure of whatever they feel is appropriate etc.
2) The judge then determins if THE warrant should be issued as it was written, the judge does NOT write the warrant, he signs off on it which makes it legal.
Now in this particular case the government has incentive to shut this site down (right or wrong doesn’t matter). So they go to the host (Amazon) and say shut them down.
Amazon makes a choice, do we stand on principal or do we comply. This choice is made based on the value to AMAZON and not to the owner of wikileaks.
Amazon has a HUGE vested interest in standing up for books not being taken off the market, and they have a long history of wins by lots of publishers and distributors on their side.
In the case of their Cloud Computers, it’s a different story, they have a long history of entire data centers being shut down because of over zealous law enforcement rolling in with trucks and a warrant and taking every computer in the building.
In Amazon’s case that’s MILLIONS of dollars DAILY in losses, and BILLIONS if you add in the losses of every customer too.
Amazon may not have been morally right to cave, and they may not have to legally had to cave, and in the end they may have won and every piece of equipment would have been dumped on their loading docks. BUT they ultimately lost because they stood up for ONE customer at the cost of THOUSANDS.
An online business would never recover from that type of thing happening. CI-Host was ONLY able to recover because most of their customers were gamers and pirates and not legitimate e-commerce businesses.
Re: Section 230 Challenges
See, I generally agreed with you up until that last sentence. That’s a rarity. I vehemently disagree with Amazon’s apparent hypocrisy in this, but I can see enough differences that it’s not hypocrisy.
That last, though? that’s hyperbolic at best.
Re: Section 230 Challenges
2) The judge then determins if THE warrant should be issued as it was written, the judge does NOT write the warrant, he signs off on it which makes it legal.
Your little scenario there has the judge determining whether the warrant should be issued, but then signing it regardless. It doesn’t work that way, and your pretending otherwise is quite dishonest. The judge only signs the warrant if he determines that it should be issued. It is not an automatic, foregone conclusion.
But...
Have you considered the possibility that amazon’s decision to drop wikileaks has more to do with protecting its ‘cloud’ network offering and its performance as it relates to other clients from the various attacks being directed at wikileaks?
Re: But...
Have you considered the possibility that amazon’s decision to drop wikileaks has more to do with protecting its ‘cloud’ network offering and its performance as it relates to other clients from the various attacks being directed at wikileaks?
I wondered if anyone was going to point out the obvious.
With rumours that future leaks will include Chinese government docs, I’d be VERY worried if my worldwide cloud hosting 1000’s of customers became the target of state sponsored cyber attacks.
Staying with Wikileaks could risk the whole existence of Amazon.
Be fair, oddities department. Amazon pulled the pedophile book within hours of it being offered. There has already been a lot of debate in comments to another “news story” re whether the Wikileaks posting is a free speech issue, a theft issue, or some other issue. The writers of these “news stories” and many of the commenters offer a skewed and sometimes illogical slant on the issues. If you’re going to share info, use facts; if sharing opinions, make it clear that’s what it is.
It’s rather sad that most peoples justification for Amazons actions are basically:
“it may be legal, but the government will make their
business impossible, so they should just do what the government wants.”
Unfortunately I think they are correct, which is yet
another sad indictment of government power today.
Re: Re:
“it may be legal, but the government will make their
business impossible, so they should just do what the government wants.”
Sometimes known as “brown-nosing”.
Unfortunately I think they are correct, which is yet another sad indictment of government power today.
Oh, it’s nothing new. For example, many companies just couldn’t wait to jump in bed with the Nazis.
Does that mean that if Assange has instead published the leaks as a book, Amazon would carry it without question? Would be an interesting experiment…
Re: Re:
This trick has been done before:
“Zimmermann challenged these regulations in a curious way. He published the entire source code of PGP in a hardback book, via MIT Press, which was distributed and sold widely. Anybody wishing to build their own copy of PGP could buy the $60 book, cut off the covers, separate the pages, and scan them using an OCR program, creating a set of source code text files. […]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_good_privacy#Criminal_investigation
It doesn't pay...
…to have a retailer host your suddenly very controversial site during the shopping season. I imagine Amazon doesn’t need boycotts and bad press.
Amazon has a legit case
It is not the case that removal of Wikileaks was only an act of censorship. Amazon seems to have some legit violations of ToS, which they have posted here.
Though it might be argued that they were quick to notice this particular violation.
Then again …
~
musically_ut
Re: Amazon has a legit case
Amazon seems to have some legit violations of ToS, which they have posted here.
Umm, no, they don’t. Amazon said “It?s clear that WikiLeaks doesn?t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content”, which is a lie. There are no “rights” to such documents. So, not only are they engaging in censorship on behalf of the gov’t, they’re lying about it too.
Re: Re: Amazon has a legit case
how can you say that with all the information on wikileads, you can say that it contains NO material.
They have every right to retrieve information that they own or created itself.
There is a vast amount of information that even though owned by the government, has subject matter or information contained within it that is not from the government.
Maybe that is information about YOU, or it might be information about things relating to security.
But if you think for a second ‘its Government information therefore I have every right to see it’ are are very wrong, and sadly mistaken.
And if you cant see that this guy is just trying to make a name for himself, and to make some money then that is your own problem.
Most people in the world, think he is a crinimal, and he should be in prison.
What about when he releases banking information, or information from a private company..
What about if you releasse you credit card and bank account number.
whould that be ok ?
What if he released information saying how to break into your house, and listing all the times you were not at home.?
What about veterins affairs medical records ?, that is government information, so would it be ok to publish thousands of people personal medical records?
Its not like the US has lots of spare money to pay for the type of damage this will cause, but if you dont mind paying, I guess the US can borrow a few more trillion from China..
Its funny how badly you want this freedom, but only if it is free information about someone else, and not YOU..
if it was you, who was his target then you would certainly feel differently..
Re: Re: Re: Amazon has a legit case
how can you say that with all the information on wikileads, you can say that it contains NO material.
I didn’t, and your implication that I did is dishonest. And attempting to paint Wikileaks as some kind of pirate site is also dishonest. But that just seems to be par-for-the-course with you.
Yes Amazon, but are the claims FALSE
“There have been reports that a government inquiry prompted us not to serve WikiLeaks any longer. That is inaccurate.
There have also been reports that it was prompted by massive DDOS attacks. That too is inaccurate. There were indeed large-scale DDOS attacks, but they were successfully defended against.”
http://aws.amazon.com/message/65348/?tag=saloncom08-20
Everything is somewhat inaccurate, so this is not a denial.
@Amazon. Are these claims *FALSE* and to what extent was your decision to drop Wikileaks influenced by political pressure?