So Is WikiLeaks Domain Banned in America?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Thanks for that clarification.

FFS, get that scary, scary avatar away from me.

reply to post by Archie


To add to what S.O. said, the sites you mention are protected by vast revenue streams, many high profile individuals who will gladly cough up for legal fees to help them fight and they will get lots of "big time" media attention if they get harassed.

I'll give you one guess what will happen to ATS if we get harassed for something like this...

If you guessed we'll disappear, you guessed right.

While I know there are a handful of people who would love for that to happen (NOT saying you are one of them by the way), I also know there are hundreds of thousands who rather it didn't happen, I'm one of them.

Springer...

reply to post by Springer


Springer, I'm sure nothing bad is going to happen. i understand your concern given the times we live in but half of it is picking your battles wisely and I'm sure this is one that won't be picked. honestly, they have bigger fish to fry. i was merely asking a question.

How can ATS consider itself an Alternative News Sight when you do not have the ability to link to alternative news sources..

reply to post by purplemer

From the front page title -

AboveTopSecret.com - Conspiracy Theories, UFOs, Paranormal, Political Madness, and other "Alternative Topics"

doesn't say anything about being an Alternative News Site

Originally posted by MidKnight
reply to post by purplemer

 

From the front page title -

AboveTopSecret.com - Conspiracy Theories, UFOs, Paranormal, Political Madness, and other "Alternative Topics"

doesn't say anything about being an Alternative News Site

But you cant give evidence of those things without alternative news sites And you cant deny ignorance without evidence

But as already has been said there is work arounds.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
WikiLeaks ---> clearing house for all kinds of documents obtained through alternative channels

WL is very strick and specific about what it publishes and how it publishes. All material has to be leaked or relevant to leaks. All info is fact checked. Then censored if necessary to protect innocent people. It's not "All kinds of documents" at all.

some illegal.

While technically leaking and whistleblowing is illegal publishing material that is leaked is not. The examples given, guardian and washington post actually worked directly with the cablegate leak and published stories based on them. Which is literally the exact same thing WL does. Also the recent Snowden affair is exactly the same issue but it's not WL / Manning, it is Snowden / Guardian. Current US government is hellbent on changing that apparently but that's where international laws and issues come to play. I wouldn't wan't to be a whistleblower in US.

No protections, relies on custom hosting strategies as it has no press protections

This is completely and totally wrong. Wikileaks has the best protection system that any publishing house has. It makes sure that no information of any leaker is ever stored. It quarantees a full anonymity. Even the instructions from JA is that WL does not trust and work with leakers who give any personal information. WL as an institution even came out to help Snowden even thought he didn't leak the material to WL but guardian instead.

but deep pockets thanks to donations.

I'm not sure where you get this? It's not like having a system as WL is free? It's actually very expensive. Permanent staff does work there for money. It's not all volunteers. Custom hosting that is designed to withstand hacks as well as possible and protect peoples anonymity is very high end and that is why WL has been succesfull.

[add] If you dont want direct links to WL because it could lead into trouble for ATS then by all means dont. But please just dont use excuses for it and just say it straight up

reply to post by PsykoOps

If you dont want direct links to WL because it could lead into trouble for ATS then by all means dont.

That's pretty much exactly what was said! (and then we gave the REASONS, not excuses...)

Bottom line, if we allow linking to it, and get a complaint (and there are plenty who would), then we could be taken offline by our provider while investigating, and that is something we just cannot do or risk being done.

As far as other sites doing it....I'm pretty sure you recall parents saying, "Well, if little Jimmy down the street jumped off a cliff, would you?" Same principle applies here. Other sites are free to risk their online future if they want to, but the owners/admins of ATS have opted not to take that risk both financially and for the benefit of the membership. We directly contacted our provider and had dialogue prior to this decision. We really checked all the t's and i's on this, but the end analysis is that we risk the shutdown of the site if we do.

That is exactly what I wanted to hear. The real reason and it is a valid reason in these times. Thing is that SO and Springer and the T&C refer to "illegal material" which is not true for WL, guardian or other publishing mediums. The material in itself is not illegal. Only the way the leaker had obtained it is illegal. Pirated material in itself is illegal and that's why I understand those links are not allowed. Another example is child pornography that in itself is illegal material. There is a difference between illegal material and illegally obtained material. If illegally obtained material was banned here then we couldn't link to any leaker stories from any other sites either.

This didnt get anwerd as Donttreadonme just closed the thread and posted T&C.


But is the guardian now a banned site?

Only if you're under military jurisdiction in US. Other than that it's not illegal.

reply to post by crazyewok


Easiest way to tell on any is to try a link. If it doesn't work, there's your answer. (then edit a correction).

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Only if you're under military jurisdiction in US. Other than that it's not illegal.

Exactly. Which makes me wonder who is actually hosting the ATS server.

Archie
Exactly. Which makes me wonder who is actually hosting the ATS server.

Not this CRAP again.

Dozens of free online traceroute tools will keep you from wondering. Hint -- we've been hosted in Dallas, TX since 2003.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Archie
Exactly. Which makes me wonder who is actually hosting the ATS server.

Not this CRAP again.

Dozens of free online traceroute tools will keep you from wondering. Hint -- we've been hosted in Dallas, TX since 2003.

In a NSA funded building. Hauling grey humainoids with black choppers to work in your server farms. j/k

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Archie
Exactly. Which makes me wonder who is actually hosting the ATS server.

Not this CRAP again.

Dozens of free online traceroute tools will keep you from wondering. Hint -- we've been hosted in Dallas, TX since 2003.

In a NSA funded building. Hauling grey humainoids with black choppers to work in your server farms.

j/k

Not the book depository is it?

www.guardian.co.uk...

www.guardian.co.uk...


Guessits not banned then

... legal fees to help them fight ...

I know you have resources, but I'd love to help with research.I study IP law, so this interests me. I'm happy to engage what I know. Get at me, I'm here a lot.