For as much as we want to regulate who views what at various point of their lives — thinking in terms of children and the parental point-of-view — censorship is incredibly difficult.

For better or worse, various outlets are free to publish their views within the legal protection of the First Amendment in the United States Constitution.

America’s freedoms are one of the main reasons why millions of immigrants risk their life and limb to find their way into the states and establish a home. Though government officials are still trying to figure out where to draw the line (or build a wall) when it comes to the immigration issue, it is a known fact that America is a popular destination place for many folks throughout the world. While the U.S. openly opposes governments who censor their people’s right to speak out against ruling parties, like all good things, limits will be tested, even in the “land of the free.”

Today, NYTimes.com reported that an injunction was set against a website, Wikileaks.org, for giving access to certain leaked documents that apparently upset a Cayman Islands Bank owner. The site considers their domain injunction similar to having the New York Times print blank pages, or the power company ordered to shut off their power:

To find an injunction similar to the Cayman’s case, we need to go back to Monday June 15, 1971 when the New York Times published excepts of of Daniel Ellsberg’s leaked “Pentagon Papers” and found itself enjoined the following day. The Wikileaks injunction is the equivalent of forcing the Times’ printers to print blank pages and its power company to turn off press power. The supreme court found the Times censorship injunction unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision.

According to the Wikileaks website, their description is as follows:

Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact. Our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by all types of people. We have received over 1.2 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources.

We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires information. Historically that information has been costly - in terms of human life and human rights. But with technological advances - the internet, and cryptography - the risks of conveying important information can be lowered.

The U.S. domain name, wikileaks.org, was shut down — albeit temporarily, I believe — as the injunction was set against the U.S.-based domain owner company. The site is still available via alternate domain names from around the world — wikileaks.cx and wikileaks.be, among others.

From the standpoint of the government(s) who stand opposed to this kind of site, I’m sure their objection would come by way of the documents being provided against non-disclosure agreements signed by the leaking parties, and the legal implications that may be tied to it. Maybe one of these leaked documents is not a truly genuine, certified one, and it implicates parties that should not be; then that proves to do more harm than good. Or, for instance, if the document leaked contains personal data or financial information — SSNs or bank access numbers — then the courts should definitely seek to ensure the Right to Privacy Americans have.

On the other hand, as I sift through the site I can see the rationalization of why the site owners can find objection to such an oppression of their site, which may have some serious redeeming value in the oversight of corruption. If the overall purpose is to expose corrupt officials and governments, or at least force transparency for the countries involved, they have a serious case and hopefully this will get dealt with as soon as possible; we would hate for the lines of freedom and censorship to be so blurry that a wrong move is made one way or the other that may prove to be hard to reverse in the short-term.

In many cases we are stuck at a Catch-22. We demand just as much freedom as we do privacy. Where does that line in the sand get drawn? It appears with this case we are figuring this out very slowly.

Or maybe this is too impossible task altogether.