Responding to a lawsuit brought against the site and its domain registrar Dynadot (dynadot.com) by Swiss bank Julius Baer & Co., White ordered the registrar to suspend Wikileaks' domain name.

The lawsuit concerned articles posted to the Wikileaks site by a former employee of Julius Baer, which allegedly suggested that the bank may have been used for money laundering or tax evasion.

Dynadot complied with the ruling, pulling the .org domain. But the website remained accessible via its IP address and several other country-code domains. Some criticized the registrar for not going to bat for its client against what many considered an unfair or unconstitutional ruling.

Asked for comment, Dynadot responded with a comment from lawyer Garret D. Murai of Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean, which represents the registrar.

"This case raises First Amendment issues that are for the courts to decide, not my client, Dynadot" said Murai. "The only agreement by Dynadot was to comply with the court's previous order to preserve evidence, including preventing Wikileaks from transferring its domain name to another registrar and from changing its account settings - essentially, to preserve the status quo. Dynadot did not agree to remove the name server settings for Wikileaks.org or to produce any information. This was requested by Julius Baer and granted by the Court."

As of this weekend, the .org domain was resolving to the site once more.

Friday's hearing was reportedly a lengthy affair that suggested Judge White's desire to reach the correct resolution. Much of the discussion had to do with efforts to define Wikileaks, which was not represented at the hearing.

Internet lawyer (and WHIR contributor) David Snead said the ruling addressed the difficult question of how to stop the flow of this kind of information, but said he supposed the ruling was probably unconstitutional.

"You can't disclose trade secrets, so a judge who prohibits further disclosure of trade secrets can legally do so," he says. "regardless of how the recipient received the trade secrets. However, you can't generally tell a publisher that they have to stop publishing altogether. Which is what it looks like happened in this case. This is 'prior restraint' which is almost always unconstitutional.

"The order requiring that the domain name be disabled it a very interesting and, I would say, savvy move. It recognizes, at least, that unlike in the paper world, the only way to stop publishing is to shut the site down. However savvy, I don't think it's legal. Given the fact that it's a broad order - it affects the entire site - it applies to legal and illegal content alike. Unless the site is a criminal enterprise, it's highly unlikely that such an order will be upheld on appeal."

Lawyers for the bank argued that the site had displayed confidential and personally identifiable information about its customers, saying those customers had a right to expect that their information would be kept private and secure. The argument presented by Julius Baer's lawyers reportedly framed the conflict as a conflict between freedom of speech and the right to personal privacy.

By filing the lawsuit, however, the bank has very likely brought more attention to Wikileaks and its documents than would have otherwise been the case.

"These kind of suits are almost always counterproductive," says Snead. " I can empathize with businesses and individuals who feel that their good names are being dragged through the mud, but the Internet is different that the paper world. The most likely result of a suit like this is to draw additional attention to the site. These sites typically have a very loyal and vocal following. A suit, or a series of nasty grams, which are typically immediately posted on to the site, only serve to draw more attention to the problem. I always counsel CEOs who feel that they've been defamed on an 'hateX.com' site to exercise restraint. The only outcome I've seen from a nasty gram from me, or a law suit, is to further publicize the site, and give more credence to the grievance."

While reportedly appearing concerned that he couldn't do more to help the bank customers whose information had been exposed, White said he felt the original ruling had raised questions of restrictions on free speech, and conceded that once the files were online, the court might be powerless to prevent their spread.