Wikileaks kicked out of Amazon's cloud

"Look at who's complaining the most about Wikileaks and you realize that it's the people who benefit from not being held accountable for their actions."

Senator Lieberman: "WikiLeaks' illegal, outrageous, and reckless acts have compromised our national security and put lives at risk around the world. No responsible company—whether American or foreign—should assist WikiLeaks in its efforts to disseminate these stolen materials."

Secretary of Defense Gates: "Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest."

Pentagon Press Sec.: "At the end of the day, as you heard from the Secretary of Defense yesterday ... this creates some awkward and embarrassing situations for the United States government, it clearly puts those who cooperate with us, even some of our diplomats, in difficult positions (hopefully not endangered situations). But, at the end of the day, it does not, at least over the long term, adversely impact America’s power or prestige."

The Supreme Court has ruled that publishing classified material is, at least in certain circumstances, protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and of the press. New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). The First Amendment's protection isn't absolute, of course; publishing the details of imminent planned troop movements most likely would be punishable if such publication would place our troops in severe danger. Given the sparse caselaw on the subject, it is an open question whether Wikileaks' publication will be considered protected by the First Amendment under the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, but I would guess that Wikileaks' actions are indeed Constiutionally protected.