We don't need no stinkin' rights.... There are any number of Constitutional rights being diminished by the various branches of government at any given time. In the 21st century the more egregious erosions are fundamentals like Habeas Corpus, Due Process, etc, etc....

While some of these issues are far more troubling than others, sometimes it is the smaller stuff that really bothers me. Take this one for example:

A controversial website that allows whistle-blowers to anonymously post government and corporate documents has been taken offline in the US.

Wikileaks.org, as it is known, was cut off from the internet following a California court ruling, the site says.

The case was brought by a Swiss bank after "several hundred" documents were posted about its offshore activities

Hmmm. Sound suspicious, but maybe the judge had grounds to order this, maybe, or...

However, the main site was taken offline after the court ordered that Dynadot, which controls the site's domain name, should remove all traces of wikileaks from its servers.

The court also ordered that Dynadot should "prevent the domain name from resolving to the wikileaks.org website or any other website or server other than a blank park page, until further order of this Court."

Oh, wait, this isn't a restraining order, it is summary judgment effectively killing the site...

The case was brought by lawyers working for the Swiss banking group Julius Baer. It concerned several documents posted on the site which allegedly reveal that the bank was involved with money laundering and tax evasion.

The documents were allegedly posted by Rudolf Elmer, former vice president of the bank's Cayman Island's operation.

NOW I get it. A really really rich group of folks doesn't want to be embarrassed by being called tax cheats. But this is America, right? No judge would summarily toss freedom of the press and freedom of speech at the behest of some European bankers in one fell swoop, would he? Guess again:

Wikileaks says it was not represented at the hearing because it was "given only hours notice" via e-mail.

A document signed by Judge Jeffery White, who presided over the case, ordered Dynadot to follow six court orders.

As well as removing all records of the site form its servers, the hosting and domain name firm was ordered to produce "all prior or previous administrative and account records and data for the wikileaks.org domain name and account".

The order also demanded that details of the site's registrant, contacts, payment records and "IP addresses and associated data used by any person...who accessed the account for the domain name" to be handed over.

Wait a second. Judge White killed the entire site, with millions of documents, so the European Bankers could go on a fishing expedition to expose their critics? WTF?

What kills me is that unless the BBC is way off base, this case doesn't even begin to pass the smell test. The judge is obviously and transparently violating some of the elemental core protections of the first amendment. And to make matters worse, as of right now, only the British and the tech geek media seem to have noticed.

Welcome to the future, folks. If corporations can't buy 100% of the of press to control the message, I guess our legal system will be their Plan B.

UPDATE: Just so you know what you're missing, here is a cached version of the front page. Glimpse at it now 'cause it will disappear soon, too.

UPDATE II: I see Drudge has linked to the BBC story, and since many in a lapdog press use his site as an assignment editor, this might, yet, get some play. Will the Rupert Mudochs and Mickey Mouses of the world allow a detailed examination of "legal" money laundering?  ¶ 10:57 PM