0 votes

Open Letter to Amazon.com by Daniel Ellsberg

I’m disgusted by Amazon’s cowardice and servility in abruptly terminating its hosting of the Wikileaks website, in the face of threats from Senator Joe Lieberman and other Congressional right-wingers. I want no further association with any company that encourages legislative and executive officials to aspire to China’s control of information and deterrence of whistle-blowing.

Entire article here: http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/open-letter-to-amazon




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Raimondo weighs in

"[Amazon's managers] were more than happy to join the attack on WikiLeaks, as their statement made all too clear"

Read more: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/12/05/defend-wikilea...

Free includes debt-free!

Not So Fast

From the Paypal boycott thread at http://www.dailypaul.com/node/151264

The Lewrockwell essay made some good points:

Yet the boycotters aren’t saying, "Hey everyone, let’s stop sending our money to D.C." Why? Because they are afraid of what the government would do to them. In other words, they are behaving exactly like the Amazon executives.

Let us not forget that all of us, to the extent we pay taxes, are funding the very organization that is carrying out operations that WikiLeaks is trying to stop. In that light, it’s odd to become indignant over Amazon for merely withdrawing its support from WikiLeaks, when the boycotters themselves continue to send their money to the organization actively trying to shut down WikiLeaks.

Maybe we should boycott Lieberman. I'm concerned that if boycotts are the reward for companies who serve Wikileaks et. al., they won't take the risk in the first place.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Free speech in America? Not so much.

He[Assange] said: "Since 2007 we have been deliberately placing some of our servers in jurisdictions that we suspected suffered a free speech deficit in order to separate rhetoric from reality. Amazon was one of these cases."

from http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-l...

Free includes debt-free!

Bump.

It appears that someone started a Petition about this matter:

http://www.petitiononline.com/WLB4AMAZ/petition.html

O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond
BAN ELECTRONIC VOTING!!

Wow. Terrific view. Greenwald

Wow. Terrific view. Greenwald won some journalism award last year, he said, and I can sure see why. Excellent article.

bump

good posts deserve bumps.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Lieberman came to power

Lieberman came to power through deceptive practices. He lost in the democratic primary in CT, ran as an independent and the Democratic party supported Lieberman instead of the party winner. Lieberman is real bad news to America. Amazon honoring Lieberman's request is horrible.

There's a little more to that story

Lieberman won because the republicans voted for him rather than the gop candidate, who got very little in the way of support. Most of the dems I knew then voted for Lamont. Every Republican I knew then voted for Lieberman.

Colchester, New London County, Connecticut

Lieberman was Also a Guest...

speaker during the 2008 RNC convention. Video here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/joe-lieberman-repub...

Same convention Ron Paul was barred from hence the counter convention Ron Paul held at the Target Center. Lieberman was welcomed with wild applause. Republicans appeared very happy Lieberman was invited. I was there--disturbing times indeed.

That's right

I forgot that. Anyway, point is, Lieberman was a GOP darling that year.
Ct for Lieberman party, my ass.

Colchester, New London County, Connecticut

I disagree

Amazon owns those webservers and can do with them what it wants. They're running a business like any other and have to weigh the costs of responding to subpoenas and court orders and the ongoing PR problem, against the fees that Wikileaks would have paid to continue the service. My understanding is that the use violated the terms of service, so it's not even a breach of contract for Amazon to discontinue the hosting.

That said, you're perfectly justified if you don't want to patronize Amazon.com as a result.

Agreed...

I agree with both brandoj and the original poster. That is the beauty of capitalism. Vote with your dollar. I do it every time I pay a slightly higher price from a small time store rather than go to WalMart. If enough people are upset about this and stopped buying things from Amazon they would undoubtedly change their tune. Once again we come full circle and return to the problem of apathetic, uninformed consumers/voters/Americans.

Want to stop animal testing? Stop buying from companies that test on animals and if it starts to hit their bottom line I guarantee they will stop. Didn't like the bailouts? Buy a Ford and take all of your money to your local credit union. Don't like the U.S. losing all of our manufacturing jobs? (if there are any left) Don't buy from WalMArt, buy American. Same fix for every business, corporation, and industry out there but people are either too uninformed or lazy.

Then... enters the problem of government favors and subsidies, banks giving preferential treatment to certain corporate friends, bailouts, etc. We have layers of problems in this county and I think the different depths of understanding regarding these problems is what causes many political arguments today. It's different perspectives based on understanding.

Same problem when it comes to voting, only 1/4 of those eligible to vote actually do. If we could just get one more 1/4 of those who don't vote to come out to vote for RP we would win in a landslide. With some of my friends, when educating then on libertarian / RP principles fails it often becomes a more effective strategy to tell them that if nothing else voting for Ron Paul is a nice big kick in the ass to the ruling elite.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

Absolutely

We have very few actual effective tools to make a change for the better.The two most powerful tools we have are Voting or Boycotting.

There are few that would give up a TV show or Xbox to take the time to vote.

There are few that would give up a little convenience or a few extra dollars to boycott.

If laziness could be conquered in this country,It would change.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

lets

BOYCOTT AMAZON

Jim Rogers

Personally done did it!

.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

If the Ruling Class

If the ruling class controls all the significant media and providers of competent large-scale web service, is there any meaning to the promise of free speech?

Should an American mega

Should an American mega corporation that enjoys the protections of our Constitution, and deals primarily in the sale of information (books, etc)fold like a cheap lawn chair, to(grossly unlawful)pressure from the most despised Senator on the hill?
Do you see a connection between the two?
Sure, they can drop whomever they want, and I can buy things from whomever I want. I won't do business with cowards - and in my opinion - traitors.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

SteveMT's picture

They folded. That is true. Why is the question?

Why did truTV cave-in on re-airing JV FEMA Camp episode?

The people who exert this kind of power must be very powerful. Money doesn't seems to be reason, so there must be other factors involved.

I wouldn't characterize it as cowardice

Amazon has a duty to generate a return for its shareholders, and if a moral stand doesn't further that end, it would not only be economic folly but potentially subject Amazon to a shareholder suit. The only way Amazon takes a "moral" stand on this is if they stand to lose money by their actions. Dropping Wikileaks probably saved them money right out of the gate, and if we're honest with ourselves, a protest of Amazon isn't going to be large enough to change that calculus.

What if Lieberman, or some

What if Lieberman, or some other shill, decides that Ron Paul's books are a threat to National Security, and uses the same strong arm tactics to force Amazon to stop carrying his books?

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

I'd let the fault lie with the shill

. . . and optionally stop shopping at Amazon, but it'd take a critical mass of consumers to hurt Amazon in the pocketbook before it'd matter. Plus, you have to keep in mind that what's involved in the instant case is more than just politician hot air. Amazon is going to have to spend money to deal with complying with legal processes, and it's probably not worth it in their opinion.

Your argument is what TSA

Your argument is what TSA uses to strip all the rights from travelers in the name of safety. Can you explain why Amazon has to pay legal costs and how much do you think it is. Amazon is making money to shareholders by attracting customers thru honoring the basic rights of the people. Now do you realize how many people are dropping Amazon? Is it good for shareholders?

I don't see how Amazon discontinuing service is related

to what the TSA does. The TSA is an elaborate government checkpoint that violates our 4th amendment right and right to travel. Amazon is just trying to save money. Every hosting terms of service I've ever seen has conditions allowing the hosting company to discontinue service if you're doing something that's going to attract legal attention. The costs I'm referring to are defending and objecting to subpoenas, responding to them, being deposed, etc. In even the simplest cases, attorney time can run tens of thousands of dollars, and the time it takes for internal legal staff to perform a document search that satisfies the rules of civil procedure would probably double that. Plus, they'd probably be faced with an impoundment order or restraining order from a Court at some point that would freeze the use of the hardware that wikileaks was hosted on. You can see how this would be disruptive to their business and not worth what Wikileaks is paying them in hosting fees.

So, it's ok then if you are

So, it's ok then if you are just following orders?
If the government ordered Amazon to stop selling certain books, Amazon wouldn't have a duty to resist that unlawful order? Is that your position?

I want to understand what you're saying. I'm not attacking you. I'm just curious about your pov.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

A government order to stop selling books

is a problem with the government, not with Amazon. They're just trying to remain profitable for the shareholders--sometimes that includes fighting the government (e.g., google fighting release of search queries) and sometimes it doesn't. Either way, you can't fault a publicly-traded company for trying to make money on the open market even in the face of a hostile governmental environment. Now, what would make me upset with Amazon is if they turn this into some way of getting favors from the Gov't, like taking some sort of security cooperation deal where they work with the FBI for $1m in earmark funds, or some garbage like that, to ferret out "cybercrime" on their ec2 cloud.

What if it is revealed that

What if it is revealed that Amazon got money from the bailout - like MSNBC and McDonalds?

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

. . . that would be separate grounds for being outraged

and related iff the money was given quid pro quo.

Thanks for the conversation.

Thanks for the conversation.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

If you love liberty, you

If you love liberty, you should not do business with Amazon any longer.
If you own their stock, Id dump it NOW.

Intolerable! We have to start making them pay for their cowardice and treachery. Are you willing to make some compromises in convenience and price, or will you compromise liberty?

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

Unnecessary Rhetoric

AntiFed - It is exactly your type of unnecessary rhetoric that keeps the liberty movement on the sidelines.

You have every right to do business with whomever you choose but, Amazon is a public company. It has an obligation only to its' shareholders. You can call them all the names you like but at the end of the day you only make the rest of us look bad.

I'd suggest you direct your anger towards Liberman and the rest of the liars in DC.