Quoting, but not singling out anyone in particular, I gotta ask where everyone's attention was 6 months or a year ago when all the banks, all the credit cards, PayPal (and probably even the Postal Money order people) got the word (from the government) to shut off every method for funding Wikileaks, because they had published stories the government didn't like.
And, answer honestly (even if it is only to yourself): how many of those among you who were paying attention, were cheering the money being cut off?
The sad problem with constitutional rights (under any and every amendment) is that too often it's a matter of whose ox is being gored - if it's someone whose rights would defend something the observer doesn't like, the observer is far more likely to cheer the right being violated. (Some of the worst offenders when it comes to this kind of hypocrisy are cops and their civilian supervisors - they revel in kicking in doors without warrants and trashing the place and people inside, but howl when they get one-tenth the same treatment themselves.)
If you intend to be taken seriously when it comes to constitutional rights, then you really should make an effort to stand alongside those other, unpopular people and acts protected by amendments other than the Second.
My apologies, I think this might be a misfire topic.
Thanks for the lecture Dave. The only two known people, and some vague advisors, associated with wikileaks are an Australian and an Icelander operating outside of the United States. Answer honestly to yourself why you would offer them protection under the US constitution.
Ask yourself if assange is subject to charges in the US of A, but for now is careful to stay in safe haven foreign jurisdictions. I wonder how veep biden characterizes the wikileaks head honcho, seeing as how he would be a credible authority in your eyes.
