"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Bill of Rights, USA, 1791
Posto isto, o domínio wikileaks.org foi reaberto, por ordem do mesmo juiz que há duas semanas decidira bloquear o acesso ao site, no âmbito do processo movido pelo Banco Julius Baer.
Desta vez, os advogados eram mais de uma dúzia, representando não a organização, que não tem existência formal, mas o proprietário do domínio (um cidadão australiano residente no Quénia) e os seus redactores, individualmente, além de várias instituições e empresas de Comunicação Social que se organizaram em defesa do cumprimento da 1ª emenda da Constituição norte-americana.
«The legal storm comes as Baer and other private banks watch international pressure mount on Liechtenstein, a European principality and tax haven, to lift its veil of bank secrecy. Many countries such as Germany and the United States say such secrecy helps their citizens to evade taxes.
Baer said on Thursday that the documents, posted on Wikileaks.org by a self-described whistle-blower, alleged tax and money laundering schemes involving Cayman Islands accounts. The bank said the documents were falsified and it denied the claims made in them.
Baer faced an international backlash after news media reported on the court injunction. Baer said the documents were prohibited from publication under both U.S. and Swiss laws.
(...)
Judge White's earlier ruling, which endorsed a settlement between Baer and Dynadot, backfired as it drew huge numbers of visitors to so-called mirror sites set up by Wikileaks.org that provided a back door to the site. White said the publicity generated by his earlier ruling was a factor in his reversal.
"The court has serious questions about the effectiveness of any order this court might issue, given the current state of affairs, that these matters are fully out in the public domain, in the virtual domain," White said.» [Reuters, sem link]
O processo judicial, entretanto, segue o seu curso. Aguarda-se que o tribunal decida como há-de considerar esta coisa colectiva sem papéis nem sítio certo, e que parece querer enfatizar esse estatuto - os advogados fizeram questão de frisar que não representavam o site wikileaks.org.
a
Posto isto, o domínio wikileaks.org foi reaberto, por ordem do mesmo juiz que há duas semanas decidira bloquear o acesso ao site, no âmbito do processo movido pelo Banco Julius Baer.
Desta vez, os advogados eram mais de uma dúzia, representando não a organização, que não tem existência formal, mas o proprietário do domínio (um cidadão australiano residente no Quénia) e os seus redactores, individualmente, além de várias instituições e empresas de Comunicação Social que se organizaram em defesa do cumprimento da 1ª emenda da Constituição norte-americana.
«The legal storm comes as Baer and other private banks watch international pressure mount on Liechtenstein, a European principality and tax haven, to lift its veil of bank secrecy. Many countries such as Germany and the United States say such secrecy helps their citizens to evade taxes.
Baer said on Thursday that the documents, posted on Wikileaks.org by a self-described whistle-blower, alleged tax and money laundering schemes involving Cayman Islands accounts. The bank said the documents were falsified and it denied the claims made in them.
Baer faced an international backlash after news media reported on the court injunction. Baer said the documents were prohibited from publication under both U.S. and Swiss laws.
(...)
Judge White's earlier ruling, which endorsed a settlement between Baer and Dynadot, backfired as it drew huge numbers of visitors to so-called mirror sites set up by Wikileaks.org that provided a back door to the site. White said the publicity generated by his earlier ruling was a factor in his reversal.
"The court has serious questions about the effectiveness of any order this court might issue, given the current state of affairs, that these matters are fully out in the public domain, in the virtual domain," White said.» [Reuters, sem link]
O processo judicial, entretanto, segue o seu curso. Aguarda-se que o tribunal decida como há-de considerar esta coisa colectiva sem papéis nem sítio certo, e que parece querer enfatizar esse estatuto - os advogados fizeram questão de frisar que não representavam o site wikileaks.org.
a
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário