I guess no-one understands the importance of the principle at sake here. Regardless if Wikileaks' motives are questionable, the fact remains that if no-one stood up for wikileaks at all, who's next on the chopping block? Because believe me, Wikileaks won't be the only site targeted and deemed as some sort of "threat". A dangerous precedent will be granted if wikileaks is taken offline, as it would mean the U.S Government (or more specifically, the Department of Homeland Security) can pressure, persuade, intimidate and/or eliminate all connections that entities have to any website they deem as a threat to national security, or even economic security. With vague wording of legislation if passed to allow this practice on a full scale, such new policy could be literally used against ANY website for almost ANY reason. This point needs to be realised and spread.
So even if all this is a set-up for net censorship, well don't bicker about it, spread the word that if Wikileaks can be silenced, anyone is a potential target eventually.
As you can tell, I'm getting really pissed off at the Alternative Media, because they exclaim "OMG he's a CIA plant out to help impose net censorship", instead of point the key fact out that anyone could eventually become a target if their comments are considered a threat under new legislation. They should focus on stopping that from happening instead of bitching about wikileaks' motives. It's the principle that truly counts, not just the content.
