Operation Payback

How is attacking other websites what we must do to ensure greater freedom of speech?

It is the most effective means available. It has given the issue huge exposure, and means that companies who are complicit in limiting free speech now know there are direct consequences to doing so. This may cause them to modify their future behaviour.


However, if you can suggest a more effective means, please do so.

Is it really the attacking that has given the issue huge exposure? Wikileaks releasing info has been what has caused huge exposure and debates on TV etc. not the attacks. It wasn't like Wikileaks was threatened and no one cared until hackers attacked different websites.


It has alerted companies that hackers will only possibly target a company associated with something of Wikileaks' nature. Uninvolved companies are not at risk based on the retaliation attacks. So they will avoid ever allowing their institutions to be involved in the process of funding such projects. Why weren't other creditcard companies attacked? Those not even involved with Wikileaks are the safest from attacks by hackers. So why not keep your company uninvolved with projects advocating free speech? Seems the safest bet to me.
Effectiveness is completely subjective and not clear at all. Everything 'may' indirectly increase effectiveness.

Since this is the case, why engage in surpressing free speech when that is exactly what umbrella groups are fighting against? It's hypocrisy!

The only thing groups should be worried about now to ensure censorship on the internet does not occur, is that Wikileaks remains available online.

Is it really the attacking that has given the issue huge exposure? Wikileaks releasing info has been what has caused huge exposure and debates on TV etc. not the attacks. It wasn't like Wikileaks was threatened and no one cared until hackers attacked different websites.

WikiLeaks and Mr Assange's trial are no longer headline news, because nothing is happening with respect to them right now. However, these attacks are in the news, and thus keep the issue in the public consciousness.

It has alerted companies that hackers will only possibly target a company associated with something of Wikileaks' nature. Uninvolved companies are not at risk based on the retaliation attacks. So they will avoid ever allowing their institutions to be involved in the process of funding such projects. Why weren't other creditcard companies attacked? Those not even involved with Wikileaks are the safest from attacks by hackers. So why not keep your company uninvolved with projects advocating free speech? Seems the safest bet to me.
Effectiveness is completely subjective and not clear at all. Everything 'may' indirectly increase effectiveness.

WikiLeaks is doing something unprecedented, so companies are not going to avoid other such controvertial agencies on that basis. Moreover, they only do very limited checks on organisations etc., and this is usually to do with ascertaining financial backgrounds or criminal records.

Since this is the case, why engage in surpressing free speech when that is exactly what umbrella groups are fighting against? It's hypocrisy!

Because it is an effective means of protest.
 

The only thing groups should be worried about now to ensure censorship on the internet does not occur, is that Wikileaks remains available online.

As important as that is, it only keeps existing data in the public domain. It does not address the issue of whether or not organisations like WikiLeaks continue to exist or do their work.

Actually the news still is convered by the Wikileaks themself. For example many paper headlines now (in Chicago especially) specifically refer to Australia codemning the U.S. government regarding the situation.

Prove they won't avoid similar projects on such a basis. It's pretty resonable to assume a different credit card company will want to avoid any chance of having their website taken down.

So protesting against something while comitting that act is effective? I don't think being known as hypocrites is effective by any means.

Attacking websites gaurentees none of that.

It's effective protest in the sense that it's attention-grabbing.  But at what cost do you get this attention?  By forcing this issue, by demanding that people listen to you, you've already lost a huge part of any moral superiority that you claim.  Rather than talking and trying to work out issues mutually, you're pointing a figurative gun at the companies.  You're essentially saying, "There will be no discussion, no negotiation.  I'm 100% right, you're 100% wrong.  Give me what I want, or else!"

That's what this entire situation is - a deal enforced by aiming a gun at the other party.  After all, I'm assuming that this will be temporary - you aren't going to be DOS'ing these sites forever, the idea is for them to agree to stop stifling WikiLeaks.  But any kind of deal or agreement that you come to with these companies will be fraudulent.  They don't give a shit about your concerns.  They'll say whatever you want to hear.  But all they're looking for is a way to get the gun off them.  And once the gun is off them - in this situation, I'm imagining that perhaps they improve their web security or something - all bets are off.  They dive for the gun, they take the shot, they resume targeting WikiLeaks, they don't care anymore about what they were just talking to you about.  And I wouldn't even blame them.

Obviously I can't prove what companies will or won't do in the future. But I fail to see how doing nothing will modify their behaviour either. As for coverage, there is some, but the attacks have a far higher profile.

It's effective protest in the sense that it's attention-grabbing.  But at what cost do you get this attention?  By forcing this issue, by demanding that people listen to you, you've already lost a huge part of any moral superiority that you claim.  Rather than talking and trying to work out issues mutually, you're pointing a figurative gun at the companies.  You're essentially saying, "There will be no discussion, no negotiation.  I'm 100% right, you're 100% wrong.  Give me what I want, or else!"

How can we talk it out when these companies have already taken unilateral steps because of clandestine government pressure? None of this is being done in the open, so we cannot challenge it in the open. These companies aren't interested in talking, they just want this to go away. The point is, we shouldn't let them get away with it.

That's what this entire situation is - a deal enforced by aiming a gun at the other party.  After all, I'm assuming that this will be temporary - you aren't going to be DOS'ing these sites forever, the idea is for them to agree to stop stifling WikiLeaks.  But any kind of deal or agreement that you come to with these companies will be fraudulent.  They don't give a shit about your concerns.  They'll say whatever you want to hear.  But all they're looking for is a way to get the gun off them.  And once the gun is off them - in this situation, I'm imagining that perhaps they improve their web security or something - all bets are off.  They dive for the gun, they take the shot, they resume targeting WikiLeaks, they don't care anymore about what they were just talking to you about.  And I wouldn't even blame them.

They care about losing money. Money is their sole incentive. If we cost them money, if we cause them to have bad press, these things matter to them, and they may be less eager to jump the next time a senator asks them to. Like I said, the outcome is more important than the motivation.

lord wilmore, dont pool all companies to your little category.  there are still good companies out there, in which they dont only have money as an inscentive.  there are serial entreprenuers, and a whole class of them.

also, the company does has the right to do what they did, decline, and not talk about it, becuase both are able to damage business, and hence, it is not really discrimination.  havent you seen the sign in some resturants that says " we reserve to right to refuse service"? same idea.  also, technically, releasing vital US and company secrets, which are protected by law, is punishable i believe.  also, releasing vital information to US's enemies, can technically count as treason

but i kinda do support not censoring wikileaks, i mean, the media gets free speech

How can we talk it out when these companies have already taken unilateral steps because of clandestine government pressure? None of this is being done in the open, so we cannot challenge it in the open. These companies aren't interested in talking, they just want this to go away. The point is, we shouldn't let them get away with it.

Clandestine government pressure is an issue, yes, but it's all the more reason that it should be talked about publicly.  You're wrong when you say that it can't be challenged in the open.  Of course it can.  What's going to happen, is a sniper going to take you out if you start talking in public?  And your punitive, confrontational attitude towards the companies, "we shouldn't let them get away with it" is only going to hurt you in the long run.  Any leverage that you have over the companies is temporary at best.  No permanent solution will be found by you making demands of them.

They care about losing money. Money is their sole incentive. If we cost them money, if we cause them to have bad press, these things matter to them, and they may be less eager to jump the next time a senator asks them to. Like I said, the outcome is more important than the motivation.

You're probably right.  But what part of this is giving the companies "bad press"?  The companies dropped WikiLeaks days ago.  It already happened.  We've all already formed our opinions on that.  But the companies have done nothing in this situation.  You are the ones who took the action.  You attacked them.  I find it very difficult to believe that there are many people out there who thought a few days ago, "I support those companies, they have the right to back off from WikiLeaks", but now think, "You know what, this makes me realize that those companies were wrong."  That doesn't make sense, does it?

You guys are the ones receiving the bad press here, not the companies, and you're only going to alienate people who might even have supported you before.  On ideological grounds, you have people like myself and Ichi, who sympathize with WikiLeaks but feel that this response is far too heavy-handed and hypocritical.  On a practical level, you've got thousands of people wanting to go onto MasterCard's website but can't (more if you take down any other websites) and will feel angry at this movement for selfishly using them as a means to their own ends.  And in the eyes of the media, you're losing an enormous amount of credibility and moral superiority by associating yourselves with 4chan, and you won't be seen as anything but pranksters and criminals.

I agree with Saddam. Besides, no one knows how this will play out in the courts.  Until justice is actually seen to be perverted, these attacks on what amounts to peripheral players sink to the level of spite.

I don't necessarily agree with attacking Mastercard or Visa, but I agree with what this is about.

Question wilmore: should governments be bound by the same laws they set for their people?

Saddam is absolutely right (only read through his first post properly). Kids these days are just so desperate for revolution, and just want to feel important so they try and rebel against anything. Just because it was cool in the 1970's to protest about everything, doesn't mean you're a special little snowflake for doing it now. It just makes you another anti-social, wanna-be anarchist.

Saddam is absolutely right. Kids these days are just so desperate for revolution, and just want to feel important so they try and rebel against anything. Just because it was cool in the 1970's to protest about everything, doesn't mean you're a special little snowflake for doing it now. It just makes you another anti-social, wanna-be anarchist.

So the world doesn't need changing?

So the world doesn't need changing?

anti-social, wanna-be anarchist.

So you think the best way to achieve change is by creating a huge public nuisance by attacking Mastercard and Paypal?

Quote from: General Douchebag on December 09, 2010, 03:52:21 AM

So the world doesn't need changing?

Quote from: frostee on December 09, 2010, 03:50:58 AM

anti-social, wanna-be anarchist.

So you think the best way to achieve change is by creating a huge public nuisance by attacking Mastercard and Paypal?

I think it's best done by armed revolution, but that's unfeasible right now. This'll do in the mean time.

lord wilmore, dont pool all companies to your little category.  there are still good companies out there, in which they dont only have money as an inscentive.  there are serial entreprenuers, and a whole class of them.

I am not lumping all companies together, but these companies have demonstrated what motivates them through their actions. Though I do believe that money is priority no. 1 for most large companies, that is not necessarily a criticism. However, it's how they balance this with their other priorities that counts. For example, though there are plenty of things which Google can be criticised for, it's clear that they eventually decided that being complicit in the Chinese Government's espionage and suppression of free speech was not worth full access to that market. Could they have decided sooner, or in the first place? Probably, in the end they made the right moral choice.

also, the company does has the right to do what they did, decline, and not talk about it, becuase both are able to damage business, and hence, it is not really discrimination.  havent you seen the sign in some resturants that says " we reserve to right to refuse service"? same idea.

To my knowledge the 'right to refuse service' derives largely from the fact that such businesses are on private property. However, a whole host of anti-discrimination laws exist, and in the absence of unruly or disruptive behaviour, most courts have ruled that discrimination for most other reasons is illegal. However, again I must stress that this is not about the companies' legal rights. The Pastor who wanted to have a Qu'ran bonfire was perfectly within his rights, yet I think most people agree that such an act would be wrong. Legal and moral wrongs are not equivalent.

also, technically, releasing vital US and company secrets, which are protected by law, is punishable i believe.  also, releasing vital information to US's enemies, can technically count as treason

but i kinda do support not censoring wikileaks, i mean, the media gets free speech

It can, but legal precedent exists in the United States which guarantees the press/media the right to publish such things. The person who leaked the documents may have broken the law, but WikiLeaks and the others who published the info have not.

Clandestine government pressure is an issue, yes, but it's all the more reason that it should be talked about publicly.  You're wrong when you say that it can't be challenged in the open.  Of course it can.  What's going to happen, is a sniper going to take you out if you start talking in public?  And your punitive, confrontational attitude towards the companies, "we shouldn't let them get away with it" is only going to hurt you in the long run.  Any leverage that you have over the companies is temporary at best.  No permanent solution will be found by you making demands of them.

There is a distinction I have made all along between protest and effective protest. Yes, I can open my window and start preaching, but will anything actually come of it? Trying to challenge companies and the government when they have put up a wall of denial is not feasible. We cannot hold them to acount if all parties involved deny they have anything to be held accountable for. This is especially true for people like me, who are not citizens of the United States and thus do not have any electoral leverage over the United States government. As for our current leverage being temporary, I agree. It's also quite limted. But it's better than nothing!

You're probably right.  But what part of this is giving the companies "bad press"?  The companies dropped WikiLeaks days ago.  It already happened.  We've all already formed our opinions on that.  But the companies have done nothing in this situation.  You are the ones who took the action.  You attacked them.  I find it very difficult to believe that there are many people out there who thought a few days ago, "I support those companies, they have the right to back off from WikiLeaks", but now think, "You know what, this makes me realize that those companies were wrong."  That doesn't make sense, does it?

You guys are the ones receiving the bad press here, not the companies, and you're only going to alienate people who might even have supported you before.  On ideological grounds, you have people like myself and Ichi, who sympathize with WikiLeaks but feel that this response is far too heavy-handed and hypocritical.  On a practical level, you've got thousands of people wanting to go onto MasterCard's website but can't (more if you take down any other websites) and will feel angry at this movement for selfishly using them as a means to their own ends.  And in the eyes of the media, you're losing an enormous amount of credibility and moral superiority by associating yourselves with 4chan, and you won't be seen as anything but pranksters and criminals.

Great, you've "formed opinions", made your minds up etc. But what have you actually done? What alternative action do you suggest, and are you engaging in it?


The degree of social and political apathy in western democracies is something I personally have grown tired of. This year, Ireland has had to be bailed out by the IMF and the EU. In the midst and aftermath of that debacle, there was huge anger directed towards the government. Lots of people came out and said "You did this, you didn't do that, you're to blame". And guess what? It's total bullshit.


It is true that the government here made a big mess of things, and is responsible for the crisis we are now in. However, as citizens, we are responsible for our government. Many of the people currently bitching (and there's no other word for it) about the government didn't vote, and many of those who did vote have taken no other political action whatsoever. They were happy to let things slide until it bit them in the ass. None of us can shirk responsability for the current crisis. Are some more responsible than others? Absolutely, but we are all to blame on some level, myself included. Almost everyone could have done more.


This is no different. There are loads of people out there who, like you & me, think that censorship of WikiLeaks is wrong. However, the vast majority are doing nothing about it. You'll complain on forums and with your friends, but what effective action are you taking? If the answer is 'none', then how legitimate are your criticisms? Suggest an alternative and effective course of action, by all means, but if your response to this is to sit back and do nothing, then I'm afraid that is not a position I can support. These are the formative years of a new digital age, and the precedents set now will affect us for the rest of our lives. That is something worth fighting for.

Paypal, Mastercard, Amazon and Visa had no issues whatsoever with Wikileaks until the gov't got its proverbial panties in such a bunch that they simply labeled Assange and Wikileaks a "terrorist" group.

Fuck them. Hard.

To my knowledge the 'right to refuse service' derives largely from the fact that such businesses are on private property. However, a whole host of anti-discrimination laws exist, and in the absence of unruly or disruptive behaviour, most courst have ruled that discrimination on any grounds is illegal.

Actually, I asked a couple of lawyers that I know (yeah, I know lawyers, I'm a big shot) about this today.  It's absolutely legal for banks and financial companies to discriminate among their customers.  If a guy with blood-splattered clothes carrying a duffel bag full of cash stumbles into a bank and says, "Hey, can I open up an account?", the bank is perfectly within their rights to tell him to go to hell.  And isn't that a form of discrimination?  The only thing they wouldn't be allowed to legally do would be to discriminate on the basis of things like race, ethnicity, or gender.  The fact that Assange is such a controversial figure and is in big trouble with the governments of the world is a very valid reason to drop him.

However, again I must stress that this is not about the companies' legal rights. The Pastor who wanted to have Qu'ran bonfire was perfectly within his rights, yet I think most people agree that it was wrong. Legal and moral wrongs are not equivalent.

On that subject, do you believe that it would be morally right to stop him from doing so, if you could do it nonviolently?  For example, if you and a group of people were to follow him around all day, forming a human ring around him so that nobody else could see him, do you think that would be okay?  A silly example, I know, but you seem to be implying that if your own personal moral judgments outweigh the legal rights of others.

There is a distinction I have made all along between protest and effective protest. Yes, I can open my window and start preaching, but will anything actually come of it? Trying to challenge companies and the government when they have put up a wall of denial is not feasible. We cannot hold them to acount if all parties involved deny they have anything to be held accountable for. This is especially true for people like me, who are not citizens of the United States and thus do not have any electoral leverage over the United States government. As for our current leverage being temporary, I agree. It's also quite limted. But it's better than nothing!

Uh, what are you talking about?  What have they "denied"?  It's no secret that those companies have dropped WikiLeaks.

(I'm not ignoring the rest of your post, but I'll reply to it later, as it might take a while to formulate my response)

Actually, I asked a couple of lawyers that I know (yeah, I know lawyers, I'm a big shot) about this today.  It's absolutely legal for banks and financial companies to discriminate among their customers.  If a guy with blood-splattered clothes carrying a duffel bag full of cash stumbles into a bank and says, "Hey, can I open up an account?", the bank is perfectly within their rights to tell him to go to hell.  And isn't that a form of discrimination?  The only thing they wouldn't be allowed to legally do would be to discriminate on the basis of things like race, ethnicity, or gender.  The fact that Assange is such a controversial figure and is in big trouble with the governments of the world is a very valid reason to drop him.

Legally valid, not morally valid.

On that subject, do you believe that it would be morally right to stop him from doing so, if you could do it nonviolently?  For example, if you and a group of people were to follow him around all day, forming a human ring around him so that nobody else could see him, do you think that would be okay?  A silly example, I know, but you seem to be implying that if your own personal moral judgments outweigh the legal rights of others.

Again, the analogy doesn't work. That Pastor was morally wrong, and was within his legal rights, but his action was not detrimental to the rights of others. The action taken by these companies is affecting the rights of organisations and citizens around the world.

Uh, what are you talking about?  What have they "denied"?  It's no secret that those companies have dropped WikiLeaks.

It's no secret that they have dropped WikiLeaks, but many are denying it was the result of government pressure. Only PayPal has said anything of the kind, and the U.S. State Department then denied they had put such pressure on PayPal.

Again, the analogy doesn't work. That Pastor was morally wrong, and was within his legal rights, but his action was not detrimental to the rights of others. The action taken by these companies is affecting the rights of organisations and citizens around the world.

No, it isn't.  WikiLeaks is not being coercively silenced.  They're still free to shout on street corners if they like, or to publish a paper, or to fund themselves with their own money.  The companies are withdrawing a purely voluntary service.  WikiLeaks does not have the "right" to a public forum.  WikiLeaks does not have the "right" to do business with certain people if those people don't want to be involved with them.  WikiLeaks does not have the "right" to have people be easily able to donate to them.  If they're so dependent on these companies that they can't function without them, then tough shit.  The services they received were the companies' to give, and they are the companies' to take away.

It's no secret that they have dropped WikiLeaks, but many are denying it was the result of government pressure. Only PayPal has said anything of the kind, and the U.S. State Department then denied they had put such pressure on PayPal.

So?  How is that important?  You're the one saying that the motivation to do something shouldn't matter.  Are you saying that if the companies simply decided to drop WikiLeaks on their own, there wouldn't be any attacks going on?  If so, then I don't think I can even blame the companies for lying in the first place.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 09, 2010, 12:45:42 PM

Again, the analogy doesn't work. That Pastor was morally wrong, and was within his legal rights, but his action was not detrimental to the rights of others. The action taken by these companies is affecting the rights of organisations and citizens around the world.

No, it isn't.  WikiLeaks is not being coercively silenced.  They're still free to shout on street corners if they like, or to publish a paper, or to fund themselves with their own money.  The companies are withdrawing a purely voluntary service.  WikiLeaks does not have the "right" to a public forum.  WikiLeaks does not have the "right" to do business with certain people if those people don't want to be involved with them.  WikiLeaks does not have the "right" to have people be easily able to donate to them.  If they're so dependent on these companies that they can't function without them, then tough shit.  The services they received were the companies' to give, and they are the companies' to take away.

Quote

It's no secret that they have dropped WikiLeaks, but many are denying it was the result of government pressure. Only PayPal has said anything of the kind, and the U.S. State Department then denied they had put such pressure on PayPal.

So?  How is that important?  You're the one saying that the motivation to do something shouldn't matter.  Are you saying that if the companies simply decided to drop WikiLeaks on their own, there wouldn't be any attacks going on?  If so, then I don't think I can even blame the companies for lying in the first place.

You know these businesses actually froze Wikileaks' accounts, right? That's not refusing to do business, which they have a right to do, it's freezing their assets, which is only legally permissible to do to criminals.

Well, if that's what they're doing, I don't condone that.  Do you have a source for that or something?

Only one of them did that though, Visa and paypal didn't

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on December 09, 2010, 01:58:12 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 09, 2010, 12:45:42 PM

Again, the analogy doesn't work. That Pastor was morally wrong, and was within his legal rights, but his action was not detrimental to the rights of others. The action taken by these companies is affecting the rights of organisations and citizens around the world.

No, it isn't.  WikiLeaks is not being coercively silenced.  They're still free to shout on street corners if they like, or to publish a paper, or to fund themselves with their own money.  The companies are withdrawing a purely voluntary service.  WikiLeaks does not have the "right" to a public forum.  WikiLeaks does not have the "right" to do business with certain people if those people don't want to be involved with them.  WikiLeaks does not have the "right" to have people be easily able to donate to them.  If they're so dependent on these companies that they can't function without them, then tough shit.  The services they received were the companies' to give, and they are the companies' to take away.

Quote

It's no secret that they have dropped WikiLeaks, but many are denying it was the result of government pressure. Only PayPal has said anything of the kind, and the U.S. State Department then denied they had put such pressure on PayPal.

So?  How is that important?  You're the one saying that the motivation to do something shouldn't matter.  Are you saying that if the companies simply decided to drop WikiLeaks on their own, there wouldn't be any attacks going on?  If so, then I don't think I can even blame the companies for lying in the first place.

You know these businesses actually froze Wikileaks' accounts, right? That's not refusing to do business, which they have a right to do, it's freezing their assets, which is only legally permissible to do to criminals.

Wasn't that his Swiss Bank that froze his assets because he was wanted?

It doesn't even matter, anyway.  If Assange's assets had never been frozen, the attacks would still be going on.  If every one of the companies admitted that the U.S. government requested them to drop WikiLeaks, the attacks would still be going on.  And even if new information suddenly came to light indicating that the companies actually did nothing wrong, and this was all an elaborate hoax, yeah, the attacks would still probably continue.  Maybe Wilmore would stop, but a good chunk of the attackers would just keep going.

Saddam:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/04/paypal-shuts-down-wikileaks-account

It turns out the other two just cut off payments which is a lot better, but still unforgivable and deserving of vengeance.
Also, the attacks only started because the assets were frozen (it's called Operation Payback), they weren't pressured by the US government (Well, they denied doing so, for what that's worth)

LordDave: They said he claimed to have residence in Geneva, which was false, so fair enough if that's true.

I still would like an answer:
Should governments be required to follow the same laws that they give their people?

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on December 09, 2010, 11:05:20 AM

Actually, I asked a couple of lawyers that I know (yeah, I know lawyers, I'm a big shot) about this today.  It's absolutely legal for banks and financial companies to discriminate among their customers.  If a guy with blood-splattered clothes carrying a duffel bag full of cash stumbles into a bank and says, "Hey, can I open up an account?", the bank is perfectly within their rights to tell him to go to hell.  And isn't that a form of discrimination?  The only thing they wouldn't be allowed to legally do would be to discriminate on the basis of things like race, ethnicity, or gender.  The fact that Assange is such a controversial figure and is in big trouble with the governments of the world is a very valid reason to drop him.

Legally valid, not morally valid.

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on December 09, 2010, 11:05:20 AM

Uh, what are you talking about?  What have they "denied"?  It's no secret that those companies have dropped WikiLeaks.

well, to you it may be moraly wrong, but to them, it may not.  you have to understand that not everone expresses and views morals the same way.  they could think that if you help someone that can hurt your country, it makes you a bad person.  they could say that becuase he has done something wrong, by helping him, you have helped something wrong happen.  it depends on your point of view

also the government should follow the laws they give, but they should have just enough power to protect them

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/04/paypal-shuts-down-wikileaks-account

Yes, they froze the account.  That's what a financial company does to any customer that they decide to reject.  They can hardly just "refuse to do business with them" without freezing their company account, can they?  You saying "freezing their assets" sounds like they were stealing their money.

It turns out the other two just cut off payments which is a lot better, but still unforgivable and deserving of vengeance.

Didn't you just say that they have the right to refuse to do business with WikiLeaks?  Ease of payments is the service that these companies offer people.  You pay them money, and in exchange, they provide a venue with which you can handle money over the Internet.  That's it.  It's a business.  A voluntary service.  If you don't want to, you don't have to do business with them.  And if they don't want to, they don't have to do business with you.  Why is everyone acting as though that amounts to an assault on civil rights?

For all intents and purposes they did freeze the assets, Wikileaks can't draw money from that account. They have the legal right to refuse to do business, but not the moral right. I think that's been covered, which is why I assumed you'd get what I meant, and it's why it deserves vengeance rather than prosecution.