Does Wikileaks pose an issue involving net neutrality?

[Earth_First]

I'm curious whether or not the interests involved will point to the recent Wikileaks developments towards building a stronger case for interested parties...

Could this bring the government into the dialog and even further the case for passing plans which will decide what content is offered?

I believe that there are already portions of the Patriot Act which already grant broad abilities to block content that they deem as 'dangerous' and 'treasonous' against The Homeland.

I just worry that the government as a whole is going to step in and create another broad set of guidelines which will further filter and/or completely DENY internet users access to content even further.

Perhaps I am missing something that would place my mind at ease, but right now; it seems that this could pose an even greater issue towards net neutrality...

[leftstreet]

1. Our esteemed elected officials are already way ahead of you

Count Sen. Dianne Feinstein among those who believe that the leak of tens of thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables is not only embarrassing and damaging to foreign policy, but illegal. Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Thursday urged Attorney General Eric Holder to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for espionage, along with "any and all of his possible accomplices."

"The unauthorized release of this information, including the recent release of approximately 250,000 State Department documents, is a serious breach of national security and could be used to severely harm the United States and its worldwide interests," the California Democrat wrote to Holder in the letter, which was also signed by the intelligence panel's Republican vice chairman, Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri.

WikiLeaks posted the cables on its website and provided them to news organizations. Assange is already the subject of an Interpol arrest warrant on sexual assault charges in Sweden. Holder said earlier this week that there is an active investigation into Assange. Feinstein and Bond said they believe Assange's actions fall under the federal Espionage Act. "If Mr. Assange and his possible accomplices cannot be charged under the Espionage Act (or any other applicable statute), please know that we stand ready and willing to support your efforts to 'close those gaps' in the law, as you also mentioned this week," they wrote.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/12/02/1954658/feinstein-wants-holder-to-prosecute.html#ixzz175HJqDES


:puke:

[RandomThoughts]

2. By my observations.

They haven't done very well at blocking anything, they just don't know that many see the stuff they don't, and just don't talk about it much, for a few reasons.

Or to make it easier, the more they try to block people from sharing, the less they will know.

[Bragi]

3. Of course they will clamp down

We really can't be surprised when cats kill birds, nor should we be surprised when people with a vested interest in secrecy realize that the internet is not their friend, and act repressively, in keeping with their nature.

[Earth_First]

4. +1 n/t

[Jack Sprat]

5. Of course. But the elected elite were already

working on suppressing internet voices of dissent. It's now just a question of time.

[EFerrari]

6. Of course. Because they know Assange isn't really their problem. n/t