irl
"Nerd crowd"? This is clearly a free speech issue, with implications for EVERYONE.
Amazon ostensibly doesn't trample free speech rights here because they are a non-government entity, but they had the option of standing UP for the First Amendment.
That would have been something. Not doing so... just makes them another large corporation.
Who even needs prior restraint when the government can lean on you behind the scenes? That's a chilling effect right there.
As for harm reduction, if transparency were taken up a few notches back in 2001-2002, it might have made it impossible to lie the populace into supporting the Iraq War.
I can't fault Amazon for not wanting to get on the bad side of the government, but I think that ignores the larger issue -- nobody should have to worry about hosting any documents with a legitimate free speech claim, sans a court order to remove them.
I find it extremely unlikely that Amazon was NOT responding to government pressure, but let's consider that possibility: In that case, Amazon is, of its own volition, deciding it has a pro-government-censorship position, even when the government hasn't tried to do so! They are taking a political stance against material that has a compelling claim to First Amendment protections.
The only pending legal case is against the alleged original leaker, not any of the publishers.
Every major U.S. media outlet has published at least parts of the documents. ALL of which are classified -- the information is classified, not just the verbatim reproduction.
"Proved" lawful? The burden of proof is not on the speaker.
The Espionage Act was just another incarnation of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which Thomas Jefferson wrote so passionately against.
The 1917 Espionage Act was in fact extended by the 1918 Sedition act.
[It] prohibited many forms of speech, including "any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States...or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
"A major effort to promote national unity accompanied America's involvement (1917-1918) in World War I. As a part of this effort, Congress enacted a number of laws severely restricting 1st Amendment freedoms to curb antiwar dissent."
Curb antiwar dissent. How much more Orwellian can you get?
http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar37.html
"Much of the Act's enforcement was left to the discretion of local United States Attorneys, so enforcement varied widely. For example, Socialist Kate Richards O'Hare gave the same speech in several states, but was convicted and sentenced to a prison term of 5 years for delivering her speech in North Dakota." (Wikipedia)
"The Act was ruled constitutional in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 in 1919. Schenck, an anti-war Socialist, had been convicted of violating the Act when he sent anti-draft pamphlets to men eligible for the draft." (Wikipedia)
Note this was prior to the Supreme Court's rulings expanding their interpretation of free speech rights.
As for the Pentagon Papers:
"The Supreme Court struck down the injunctions. However, the decision was fragmented, with nine separate opinions being filed in the case. It was not clear at the time what the effect would be on future prior restraint cases." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint
9 separate opinions is a decent indicator you've got an unconstitutional law. Of course, Jefferson didn't need ANY supreme court justices in order to know a Sedition Act is unconstitutional on its face, and neither should you.