Talk:Wikileaks spokesperson discusses recent court case with Wikinews

OR Notes
Conducted vie email. More information will be added (but in the mean time look at the first revision of the article) --Anonymous101 Talk 06:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Transcript
--Start of transcript-- I asked Wikileaks-

"Sir/Madam,I am Jonathan Winterview on WikiNews (wikinews.org) and I have been writing several articles on the 'censorship' of Wikileaks. Would it be possible for your spokesperson to answer the questions below for my final article regarding this issue on Wikileaks. If you do choose to answer the questions please include permission for me to include your answers in my article. Thanks for you time, Jonathan Winterview (User:Anonymous101 on Wikinews and Wikileaks) Questions 1)What do you believe Judge Whites reasoning was for lifting the injunction? 2)Bank Julius Baer have claimed in a recent press release that they did not wish for wikileaks.org to be taken if line. Do you believe the claims in this statement. If not, why not? 3)Do you believe Bank Julius Baer will suffer as a result taking Wikileaks to court? 4)Bank Julius Baer have said that they were not able to negotiate with Wikileaks. Is this true?"

"> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 01:04:38PM +0000, Wikinewsie: Anonymous101 wrote: > > > Sir/Madam,I am Jonathan Winterview from WikiNews (wikinews.org) and I > have > > > been writing several articles on the 'censorship' of Wikileaks. Would it > be > > > possible for someone from you press department to answer the questions > below > > > for my final article regarding this issue on Wikileaks. If you do choose > to > > > answer the questions please include permission for me to include your > > > answers in my article. > > > Thanks for you time, > > > Jonathan Winterview (User:Anonymous101 on Wikinews and Wikileaks) > > > Questions > > > 1)What do you believe Judge Whites reasoning was for lifting the > injunction? > > > > Judge white stated that he lifted the order based on first amendment > > grounds. He also mentioned the counter-productive effect of the > > previous order, which only served to draw attention to and spread > > the documents concerned. While no doubt these reasons play a part > > in the decision, we should not forget that by having 12 lawyers > > physically in the court room arguing against the censorship order > > -- and many newspapers outside it -- Wikileaks displayed more "power" > > at this hearing than the Swiss Caymans bank was able to muster. The > > anti-censorship side also spent considerably more money. While the > > outcome is certainly just, let us not forget that what it took to > > achieve it. What it took to overturn the order was raw power -- > > Wikileaks in solidarity with 18 large media organizations and > > constitutional rights groups. While we hope we have set an example > > to other judges who would make similiar orders, everyday day less > > well-connected individuals and groups are censored because they > > lack the resources to engage in a Wikileaks-style technical, political > > and legal fight. Let us not forget them. > > > > > 2)Bank Julius Baer have claimed in a recent press release that they > > > did not wish for wikileaks.org to be taken if line. Do you believe the > > > claims in this statement. If not, why not? > > > > This is a lie. See "Wikileaks blasts Cayman Islands bank" for our > > full response. > > > > > 3)Do you believe Bank Julius Baer will suffer as a result taking > > > Wikileaks to court? > > > > Baer will lose millions of dollars, possibly hundreds of millions > > dollars as a result of its attack. Baer has a prospective US IPO > > listed at close to $1 billion. Appart from the world-wide ill will > > and increased scrutinty from regulators Baers actions must have > > produced, it is not unreasonable to suggest a fall of 10% to 30% > > of the IPO price -- $100M to $300M. > > > > > 4)Bank Julius Baer have said that they were not able to negotiate with > > > Wikileaks. Is this true? > > > > This is a lie. See "Wikileaks blasts Cayman Islands bank" for our > > full response. > > > -- > > > Jonathan Winterview - Wikinews Administrator and Editor. > >"

Then I asked-

"On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 08:59:11PM +0000, Wikinewsie: Anonymous101 wrote: > Sir/Madam, > > Is it possible for you to give me permission to quote your answers (from > previous message) on Wikinews. > > Thanks again for your time, > > Jonathon Winterview"

They responded

"Permission granted."

--End of Transcript-- If any more information is required please ask me. --Anonymous101 Talk 07:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Confusing
I realize that the response to ''Bank Julius Baer have claimed in a recent press release that they did not wish for wikileaks.org to be taken off line. Do you believe the claims in this statement. If not, why not?'' was just to reference to another document. However, the attempt to insert information from that document is very confusing and the punctuation only adds to the confusion. Can it be cleaned up? --SVTCobra 01:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Typo
editprotected "similiar" => "similiar [sic]" Van der Hoorn (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ ♪ Tempo di valse ♪  15:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)