I fully support keeping Wikileaks online and available. However, does it make sense to fight censorship (and keep websites like Wikileaks online) by attacking other websites and causing them to go offline? A little hypocrisy I think.
There is a distinction to be made here. The DDoS attacks being made against the WikiLeaks site are illegal, and it's possible they have been made by non-governmental organisations. The decision to attack MasterCard, PayPal etc. is in response to
their actions, not the actions of those seeking to bring down WikiLeaks.
I don't think what Paypal, Mastercard, or any of the other companies did was illegal
That remains to be seen.
or immoral. They aren't singling out a group of people, they're singling out a single individual because of all the problems serving him causes.
What problems have WikiLeaks caused MasterCard, PayPal etc.? None directly. The problem is being caused by the government and elected officials.
It would be akin to a bank refusing to allow a known money fraud felon to open an account.
No it would not, as WikiLeaks have not been convicted of any crime.
Or for a restaurant to refuse service to a reality TV star who has cameras on them at all times.
This analogy sucks big-time, because no restaurant would do this. It would be free exposure. Moreover, the scenario is not analogous; the issue here is that the cameramen would not be paying or eating. WikiLeaks are paying customers.
Secondly:
What they're doing is forcing a boycott rather than simply having one. Such an action is not moral as it removes choice from others. Would it be moral to blow up an empty abortion clinic just to protest their use? Or physically keep people from entering Wal-mart just because you don't like how they buy out mom and pop stores?
These companies are also participating in what is essentially a forced boycott. They are preventing customers from supporting WikiLeaks by blocking off their financial resources, for no good reason. And don't forget that one of the targets was the Swiss bank which froze Assange's personal account on highly dubious grounds.
In essence, you're physically removing freedom of choice and if that's not morally wrong to you, then we have very different ideas of morality.
Temporarily removing freedom of choice is a standard and indeed necessary feature of effective protest. It is a question of priorities: some freedoms are more important than others, and some are under more threat than others.
On a personal level, I agree with all of that. But the fact remains that it is their decision to make. If they want to be cowardly, if they want to be put their business ahead of their morals, they can do so. You, as a private citizen with no connection to this, cannot come out and say, "You can't do that!"
That is where you are wrong. I am not a "private citizen", I am a human being first and a citizen second. I can do precisely whatever I want. Might there be consequences? Perhaps, but that is for me to judge. I do not see myself as defined by any state.
Also, I do understand the difference between a moral right and a legal right. But we can't just discount the law here, because morality is too subjective for there to be rules without any kind of code. If you think that what the companies are doing is immoral and therefore, they must be silenced, then maybe I think that what Wikileaks is doing is immoral and they need to be silenced. And who says that you're right and I'm wrong? That's why we have law.
Yes, but what we see with the attack on WikiLeaks is that the law is not being followed, and has indeed been thrown out the window. The law cannot be in play for some parties and not for others. Extra-legal (and possibly illegal) methods are being used to attack WikiLeaks. Civilians do not have the ability to put the kind of extra-legal pressure on WikiLeaks that governments have, so illegal methods are our only recourse.
That's not my point. You are forcibly stopping millions of people from exercising their rights to free speech and commerce, all to protest that someone else is being deprived of free speech! Don't you see the enormous hypocrisy there?
In what way is free speech being affected here? As for the right to free commerce, that is precisely what those pressuring WikiLeaks have undermined. It is their protestations which are hypocritical.
And if we're going to judge the morality of your vigilantism by comparing conflicting rights side by side, then where do you draw the line? If the WikiLeaks supporters decided that the best way to protest would be to lie down in the middle of a street you drive down every day, would you support that? What if they said they would wreck a random home every night until PayPal resumed services to WikiLeaks, and the first home they decided on was yours?
The former is non-violent protest, and has been a mark of many independence and human rights movements throughout history, notably the Black Civil movement in the U.S. and the Indian indpendence movement. The latter is violent protest, and I do not support that except in extreme circumstances. Remember though that the U.S. was founded on such violent protest, and principally over a tax dispute.
But in any case, let's be honest here. This isn't about WikiLeaks. This stopped being about WikiLeaks the moment 4chan became involved. This is no longer protest. It's not even revenge. This is anarchy.
I couldn't give two figs about Anonymous/4chan in general. I have not participated in any of their previous actions, even some of those which I have some sympathy with. I support this action precisely because it is related to WikiLeaks, and that is almost certainly true of many others. Is everyone involved motivated for the same legitimate reasons? Of course not, but the same could be said of any movement. Nevertheless, I believe those people are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, and ultimately the outcome is more important than the motivation.