Goldman Sachs -- another case of website censorship?

If you've been reading the Confluence, you'll know that we face another case of attempted website censorship. (This is the second such case to come to my attention within the past 24 hours. See the preceding post.) The blog under attack -- and it is indeed a very basic, unpretty, no-nonsense affair -- is Goldman Sachs 666. The site is run by a guy in Florida named Mike Morgan:

Yes, I am short Goldman Sachs stock. I believe this company is evil and should not exist. We need to begin to break up companies that have as much control over world finances as Goldman Sachs.

Here's how bostonboomer at the Confluence describes the sitch:

He has scheduled a conference call and “webinar” for tomorrow night, April 15 at 6PM for volunteers who want to help him research Goldman Sachs, their role the the financial meltdown, and their possible manipulation of the stock market through their dealings with AIG. He also wants to call attention to Goldman Sachs’ influence on the government through their large donations to politicians such as President Barack Obama and Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd. Morgan discloses that he did lose money from his investments with Goldman Sachs.

Goldman Sachs has hired the law firm of Chadbourne & Parke, which is going after Morgan on the grounds of trademark infringement. See the ABC News story here.

Mr. Morgan did not ask me to create the ad which now adorns the right-hand column. If anyone at Chadbourne & Parke wants to serve me with papers -- well, first, let's see 'em find me. I know the law. The First Amendment gives me the right to create spoofs, parodies, satires, and dead-earnest critiques.

Speaking of Goldman Sachs: This NYT writer indicates that Goldman was able to post comforting numbers by -- er -- pretending that the month of December no longer exists.

And check out with Naked Capitalism has to say about Goldman Sachs CFO David Viniar:

Viniar professes to by "mystified" at the interest in the Goldman's dealing with AIG and pretends AIG is a mere "counterparty". Let's see, the CEO of AIG was recently a board member of Goldman and still owns $3 million of Goldman stock. Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein was the only Wall Street representative asked to confer with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson when the AIG crisis broke. AIG paid out al its counterparties in full on their exposures at each downgrade, a move that has since been questioned, and Goldman was far and away the biggest recipient of these payments. Viniar's defense is that the payments netted to zero, which is technically correct but more that an tad misleading (why should Goldman be made whole on a bad business decision? Since when is the taxpayer in the business of propping up Goldman, particularly since the firm paid large bonuses in 2008? Aand unlike AIG, where the bonuses are mere chicken feed, we are talking bonuses in easily in excess of $10 billion.

Now that Goldman Sachs has decided to try its hand at internet censorship, I'm going to spend a lot more time paying attention to Goldman Sachs.

Update 2: I just sent a note to Chadbourne & Parke. I linked to this post and said "Neener!"