UPDATE: After inquiries by Sen. Joe Lieberman over its hosting of WikiLeaks' servers, Amazon has now given the boot to the controversial site. More here.
As we reported yesterday, in the hours before WikiLeaks published its latest cache of secret government files, a hacker tried to shut it down with a cyber attack (something a Chinese hacker seems to have succeeded at today). Fortunately for WikiLeaks in the previous hacking case, it's website is hosted on several different worldwide servers, including those owned by Seattle's own Amazon.com, which meant WikiLeaks could move its traffic and avoid a more crippling attack. This isn't sitting well with some folks and calls for an Amazon boycott are now springing up on the internet like mushrooms after a rain storm.
But PI blogger Charlette LeFevre (who seems to have no obviously public political leanings) posted a demand for a boycott early this morning.
I wonder would Amazon have published a list of underground railroad sites in the days of slavery?
Would Amazon have published Schindler's list?
Would Amazon also publish the names of all their own current employees and their foreign connections?
Besides drawing an obvious false equivalency between slavery and holocaust era information and the embarrassing-at-best, dangerous-at-worst nature of WikiLeaks latest dump, LeFevre goes on to say that "I am a consumer and can exercise my consumer buying power by boycotting Amazon and sending a message."
A boycott would indeed hurt Amazon. It's highly unlikely that it would hurt WikiLeaks, however, as the site has several mirror servers in Sweden, France and elsewhere and could likely find a new company to host it, should Amazon give it the boot.
But being that no one can seem to find WikiLeaks top dog Julian Assange and have him answer for his controversial disclosures, it's not surprising that some are aiming at a much easier target.