The bank which sued and managed to shut down DNS access to an anonymous whistleblower website is now in some serious PR problems. The Julius Baer bank in Switzerland, a favorite bank for the mega-wealthy across the world, filed a complaint earlier this month against the site and its US-based host Dynadot for posting several hundred of the bank’s documents.

Some of those documents, posted by a former bank employee, allegedly reveal that Julius Baer was involved in offshore money laundering and tax evasion in the Cayman Islands for customers in several countries, including the U.S. The documents leaked on the embattled site contain numerous references to the bank's former vice president in the Caymans, Rudolf Elmer, but it's unknown whether he is the whistleblower.

Now, instead of the information disappearing, as the bank would have wanted, it has actually been read by probably 100 times more people than if they would have ignored the posting. In fact, I never have heard of Wikileaks before this scandal, and odds are that neither did you. This situation is known as the "Streisand effect," after Barbra Streisand's 2003 lawsuit seeking to remove satellite photos of her house in Malibu, California.

In addition to attracting attention to the leaked documents, the entire anti-censorship community has rallied behind Wikileaks which will have a significant effect on both the lawsuit's outcome and the bank's future reputation. The judge who issued the ruling is also under heavy fire.

"Blocking access to the entire site in response to a few documents posted there completely disregards the public's right to know," said Ann Brick, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, as quoted by AP.

Wikileaks has been under fire since its inception in December 2006, as confidential documents belonging to some institutions have been posted on the site. Critics also have questioned the motives of the site’s founders. However, many others have praised the site for supporting the free dissemination of information.

Despite Court’s order, Wikileaks stated that it would "keep on publishing, in fact, given the level of suppression involved in this case, Wikileaks will step up publication of documents pertaining to illegal or unethical banking practices."