As far as I know the issues around Amazon's decision to evict WikiLeaks from EC2 have not been discussed in the tech blogosphere. If I've missed the discussion, please post pointers in a comment on this post. I want to read what has been said.  

In a previous post here on Scripting News, Matt Terenzio, who works as a system manager at a small Connecticut newspaper, said that basically Amazon can't be used to host independent news. I quoted Matt in my talk at the PDF conference a couple of Saturdays ago. What he says is not only true, but very important to journalists and bloggers. 

Initially, I said that I wouldn't take my sites off Amazon because of their decision to not host WikiLeaks. I'm re-thinking that, but I want the benefit of a really good examination. Perhaps Amazon would like a chance to clarify their intentions, now that that the dust has settled. What would they like their customers to think about this, as it relates to their work?  

Where would I move my sites? Do other vendors have a more clear statement of what they will and won't do under pressure from the US government?  

We need to look at this dispassionately as possible.  

The question is this: What service-level guarantees do we need from vendors to make it possible to use their services in our public writing.  

Can we use S3 and EC2 to host free speech? Not a question I ask lightly, since this page, as of 12/24/10, is hosted on EC2. 

Update: This piece is also running on the Atlantic.