I was just going through Wikipedia to look up something when I caught this bit
at their "news" section:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/%27Wikil...urt_injunction

The website WikiLeaks.org has been taken off line in many parts of the world. Wikileaks is a website dedicated to leaking documents that are "anonymous, untraceable, uncensorable."
Looked up the complainant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Baer_Group

In 2008, Bank Julius Baer sued WikiLeaks and its domain registrar for the wikileaks.org domain name, Dynadot, allegedly because of leaks claiming illegal activities at the bank's Cayman Island branch. On February 18, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a permanent injunction against Dynadot forcing it to "lock the wikileaks.org domain name".
Then saw this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks

Dynadot was further ordered to "immediately clear and remove all DNS Hosting records for the wikileaks.org domain name and 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." The injunction was based on a stipulation between Bank Julius Baer and Dynadot and dismissed the suit against Dynadot.
Further reading:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/j...st-v-wikileaks

Sure would be nice if Dynadot fought this. But then, it doesn't make business
sense to assume a user's legal risk/s over a $7 to $10 a year contract.

If someone suggests using an offshore registrar, I posted about that too:

http://www.dnforum.com/f26/registrar...ad-267077.html