So as you probably know, Amazon.com kicked Wikileaks off its servers - due to pressure from politicians. This, after the Wall Street Journal revealed that Amazon computers had been hosting the site that leaked all the secret cables.
And this has caused an outcry among bloggers. Censorship, they moan.
For example, a TechDirt dweller frets that "the government is resorting to more traditional censorship methods: pressuring companies to silence Wikileaks."
And there's Valleywag, who scolds Amazon for being "weak-willed," suggesting that "avid readers ... are unlikely to enjoy doing business with Amazon if they think the company is censorious."
But the blogger reminds us that, being a private company, Amazon "is of course free to pick and choose what it wants to sell."
At this point, I think we need a palate cleanser:
Anyway, if you think Amazon is a wuss for dumping Wikileaks, fine. But you're a dope if you think it's censorship. And every time you call censorship on something that isn't censorship, you make real censorship that much harder to take seriously.
Fact is, if you want to read the leaked stuff, you can- for the rest of your damn life. But no one is obliged to make it any easier.
And, as someone who sees a link between behavior and consequences - I think anyone hosting Wikileaks, or entering into confidentiality agreements with them - are selfish pawns. You pretend it's about journalism and free speech, when it's really about getting the scoop first. Who cares if it harms anyone.
So pipe down with your censorship, twerps. Find other crap to whine about. Like that my book, "The Bible of Unspeakable Truths," is currently ranked 12,485 on Amazon. In my mind, that's the real outrage.
And if you disagree with me, you sir, are worse than Hitler.
and maybe Andy