Slashdot Mirror
US ISP Terminates Iranian News Website
grcumb writes "BBC News Online is reporting that the 'semi-official' Iranian Student News Agency has had its contract arbitrarily terminated by the US hosting service The Planet. Quoted in the Central Asian & Southern Caucasian Freedom of Expression Network, an ISNA spokesman said, "Eliminating the site of ISNA, a media outlet widely accessed around the world, is against informatics laws and runs counter to the rhetoric about the free flow of information and the principle of freedom to access information and news,". The BBC Reports that Iranian government officials were quick to accuse the US administration of pressuring The Planet to terminate the contract. So what should we make of this? Government conspiracy, corporate arrogance, or the proper sanctioning of the mouthpiece of an oppressive regime? " As the submittor says, details are virtually unknown about this - my research shows some calling the ISNA a 'bastion of freedom' to other saying it's run by flunkies of the old men of Iran; definitely not cut and dried one way or another.
Or perhaps it's just business. Some ISP's don't want the hassle that comes with hosting a controversial web site. It costs money and time to do so, and may not be profitable. I can't argue with The Planet if they just decided they weren't making enough money on the deal for it to be worth keeping.
or the proper sanctioning of the mouthpiece of an oppressive regime?
You by by an oppresive regime.
Trolling is a art,
Say it with me...
In Iran, only Old Men read ISNA.
Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story
When will people realize they don't have a "right" to be hosted? Private businesses can do whatever they like since they pay the bills. I'm sure there are a thousand other host that will take the business and a good portion of them are in the USA.
For what it's worth, I've been using The Planet based hosting for a good while now with many servers there. Every aspect of their service and support is the most top of notches, and I truly don't believe they'd take such action lightly.
the site is all arabic to me
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
But I imagine it won't be any more forthcoming from the main source (The Planet) than the details of the SCO vs. IBM trial from SCOs side.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
The US is not the shining pinnacle of freedom it once was. The American people have obviously been free for too long and they dont appreciate it anymore.
Where exactly is this "informatics law" inscribed in US legislation?
Government censorship is (nearly) always very bad.
Personal self-censorship is essential to civilization.
Business self-censorship, if done correctly, is good business, and is closer to personal than to governmental censorship.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
It's simply the "administration" shutting down the flow of information in advance of an attack. They don't want any pesky students posting photos for all to see of abuses to Iranians or leaking sensitive tactical information, or perhaps they have simply declared this site as a host for terrorists. Time to watch for other Iranian sites going dark to see if this is the precursor to the next round in "The War on Terror".
I wonder which war will take longer to admit defeat in, Terror or Drugs.
p.s. please read the subject of this post :-)
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Anyone who thinks it is needs to educate themselves on the free market.
Yes, in this country, you have a right to say whatever you want. However nobody is obligated to broadcast your message, especially if they believe that your message could be harmful to their own wellbeing.
Now The Planet may have grounds to sue for breach of contract, but that hardly makes this an issue of constitutional law.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
...its foolish to speculate without any information or evidence to support any claims whatsoever.
Link to actual story from the BBC
Another one bites the dust
- ISNA accepted funding from Palestinian militant groups. Hamas and Islamic Jihad helped sponsor the site, and consequently the site was sympathetic to their viewpoints - at times, even running banner ads.
- ISNA advertised for fake charities. Several now-indicted or convicted fronts to radical groups were also major contributors to the site.
- ISNA advocated the killing of innocent Americans. As any Muslim knows, our faith and the Koran does NOT espouse violence against innocents. The ISNA site, on the other hand, frequently published and distributed hateful anti-American literature encouraging the forceful conversion or even murder of innocent Westerners.
As somebody whose friends have been victims of misguided hate crimes against Arab-Americans, I am happy to see this extremist site gone. We will only live in peace when both Muslim and Christian zealots put down their weapons.I guess from a theocratic mindset, whenever any disagreeable action occurs it must necessarily be the fault of an overbearing government? Because all I'm seeing here is capitalism in action.
Why are there so many ridiculous conspiracy theories in the media in the middle east? For those US citizens keen on comparing the US government to Orwell's "1984," what do you make of the fanciful and extremely tabloid nature of press in the mideast? To me, that seems far more "1984"ish than anything that's yet transpired in the US, including Fox News.
(Not that I have porn on my site, well not much). It's a simple business decision. It takes alot of good press to get rid of a bad vibe like being at all associated with terrorism or Adult content. What it comes down to is the content is on your server, so you must condone the content.
Doesn't that kind of resolve the question of whether it's for freedom or the thugocracy that currently rules Iran under the guise of religious purity?
They're posting a bunch of messages in news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting about how they've terminated a bunch of spammers, and would the blocklist operators pretty please de-list them? Maybe this is part of that effort, either deliberately or accidentally.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Unless the US government influenced them to shutdown the site, I see no problem. ISPs (actually I think IPP is the term here, not sure) have a right to choose who they do and do not host. Some have blanket refusals of certian kidns of websites (porn sites are commonly disallowed), others make the decision on more of a case-by-case basis.
/.ing of their main site). It's possible that it is as simple as the site using more resources than this particular host can or is willing to provide.
If they deicded that this particular site was unacceptable, either because it included content not allowed by their rules, or simply because the amount of money they made was less than money it cost them in terms of lost bussiness, support, complaints, etc, then it is understandable that they'd decide to terminate it.
From the speed at which their main site is loading (as in not at all) I'm going to guess this isn't a large hosting operation (the big ones like Pair will laigh of a
Unless I see some proof of the US ogvernmetn being involved, I'm thinking it was a bussiness decision, and regardless of if it's a good or bad one, that's their right. ISNA is perfectly free to find another host, and this time hopefully they'll check more carefully to make sure they won't have the plug pulled on them. There are plenty of hsots out there, BLue Gravity being one I'm aware of, that for enough cash will let you host high bandwidth and contraversial things (including porn in the case of Blue Gravity).
Might look like Arabic, but it's not the same...
Whatever the details are, I'm sure it is just another good opportunity for the /. crowd to bitch about US President Bush.
Guess he just hates the Iranians' freedoms. The same as he hates the freedom of women to control their own bodies, the freedom of people in love to marry whatever their sexuality, the freedom from pain and wasting that pot can give cancer victims, the freedom of future generations from debts he can lead us in accumulating.... Yup, gotta admire his consistency and leadership in decisively acting against the freedoms he and his followers so righteously hate!
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Feeling insecure about Bush are we.
The Planet has the same right to refuse service to repressive regimes as Ebay does to refuse auctions of Nazi items. Free speech includes the right to control what is said on property you own.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
... the proper sanctioning of the mouthpiece of an oppressive regime?
Shut down Fox!
So let's each pick a side and start making wild assumptions and speculation.
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
I used to work for a web hosting company. Any site that in any way pissed people off or even irritated someone a little bit often lead to someone trying to DDoS the stupid site. I can only image how many people are trying to break into/bring down this site because something they said made them mad. I am not saying that what they say is right or wrong, but it is sure to rub someone the wrong way.
It wouldn't suprise me at all if The Planet was just done dealing with the crap. I know we terminated more than one customers account due to that.
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
This is a good example of why you shouldn't host your website on a US server with an US company.
"...definitely not cut and dried one way or another" /.
One of the more apt punch lines I can recall reading in
But all the more reason to cry foul: precicely because it is not well and widley know whether its a propaganda site or the tattered soap box of some oppressed students, its should be left up to the intelligence of the readers on the web to decide what they believe and what they reject.
I have enormous difficulty accepting that the disruption is due, in effect, to the failure of someone to pay their hosting bills. I spend more on coffee than it takes to host a medium traffic webpage. And both the Iyatollahs and the Shah loyalists and just about everybody but the women in Iran have all the cash that could be needed.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Yes, because we all know that women, gays, and drug users are infinitely more free in Iran than they are in Bush's Amerikkka.
Right.
Dude, put down the bong and think about what you're saying for a minute, k?
Um to point out something...[about the pot]
You say we should encourage pot for people who are sick...
And how many kids have ADHD [formerly known as ADD]? How many take drugs for it? How many actually need the drugs and not just a good swat on the ass?
If you legalize pot then first it will be the true needy, then the milderly needy, then just the "oh fuck I don't want to deal with work head aches"...
The real solution is to rebuild society on a "do things because it fills your life" and not money. Then they wouldn't push meds and the chronic all around and we wouldn't be in this mess.
[For the record, yes I would be a janitor or gas jockey if it meant I could enjoy living conditions on par with the rest of society. Not just the ultra poor].
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Iran, also not necessarily a 'bastion of freedom'... :)
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
As for the web site taken down here, I don't see the government taking down all the neo-Nazi web sites advocating killing all the Jews. What's the difference?
How about the outpost of tyranny at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW in Washington, DC? Who's doing what about them?
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
The netblock owner for Iranian Sutdents' News Agency (ISNA) appears to be Hostway, at least acording to Netcraft but it looks old.
Speak truth to power.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Freedom of speech means just that: freedom of speech. Regardless of how odious the speech is (unless, of course, it actively advocates hate crimes and violence), it should be free. People are smart enough to make their own judgements (though the recent US elections would lead some to doubt that ;-) ).
It would be interesting to get to the bottom of this. Why did The Planet kill the site? Maybe some of their customers can prod them into giving some explanation. In all likelihood their techs read /. too, so, to them: pipe up, folks. What's the deal here?
Even if the ISNA is run by the tyrants who run Iran in the name of some imaginary "god", that doesn't give their ISP the right to decide they're "bad old men" and terminate their connection. That's the power of free speech: bad and wrong speech is vulnerable to attack on its merits. Supressing it just puts it out of reach of the only weapon that can destroy it: confrontation with truth, logic, compassion. So your research into whether the ISNA's propaganda status is "cut and dried" is totally irrelevant. Only research into whether ISNA violated some express, and valid, term of service with their ISP, or whether political pressure on their ISP forced them to drop ISNA, or the like, is relevant.
Look, Fox News proved in Florida's highest court a couple of years ago that "news" reporting is not legally required to meet any standard of truth. Why should ISNA's propaganda disqualify them from publishing their website, or email, etc? If that's how the Internet is run, Slashdot is doomed.
--
make install -not war
TFA says that they got only 48 hours notice and that it is a breach of contract. By all means have morality in business (I'd salute you for it!) but you can't just break deals on a whim.
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Which is why it is sad if they got the plug pulled because of their content. Our liberty is defined by whether we err on the side of caution and shut down anything that makes us the least uneasy, or whether we accept the risk of things we don't understand/agree with. See Lee Greenwood fans vs. Flag-burning.
Maybe this is just a business decision, completely independent of politics. I doubt it. The US administration is growing increasingly hostile to Iran. Imagine a US ISP hosting a news service sympathetic to Iraq during the build-up to the war. Do you think that they would keep doing so? Do you think that, in the current climate of "sieze you and your assets with a secret warrant and haul you to Cuba where you never get a trial or even a lawyer", the ISP would even wait for the government to say anything?
Most likely, this web site seemed risky to business, and they figured it would just be best if they ended their business relationship. Understandable, but when we look at the history of human abuse and how it is institutionalized in society, we always ask, how could people just stand by and let that happen? Well, you're watching it happen. This may be a small thing, and not particularly oppressive, but it's a good example of how we've allowed ourselves to be intimidated by the threat of government attention, and how it affects many of the decisions we make every day.
Would you open an AOL account so you could start a pr0n website using the included web space? Would you then cry censorship when they take you page down? Maybe these guys did their homework, but it seems to me you'd want to either self-host or be very selective if you're going to run a contriversial site. Oh but wait, then you wouldn't get that free publicity when they shut you down, or the free hosting when some "hero" steps in to "right the wrong".
Shared hosting is like living in an apartment building. If you want to start a swinger's club, you might want to consider a more out-of-the-way location and either buy it or find an open-minded landlord. Because the first time someone shows up at your building with sex-toy-headgear on, Mr. Flanders in 3B is probably going to start making phone calls.
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
I have been since the leader of the free world made his first extemporaneous speech.
Give him a few days at the ranch to practice a highly crafted and focus group tested message ... put a blue banner with the word of the day printed on it ... and he is a glorious leader indeed...queue hail to the chief.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Either of your first two claims (if true) would probably be reason enough to shut it down, due to the administration's current stance on terrorist financing. Now, I personally think their definition of 'terrorism' is overly broad, but this specifically is the sort of thing they did have in mind.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
It is strangely possible that some events occur without any government intervention. While it's quite possible, I have to say I really hate the spin added to this story, especially when it's even admitted that there aren't any real details as of yet.
In other news... Man misses light on way to work because of pedestrian in pedestrian crossing... could this be a government conspiracy? News at 11
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
You say they may have grounds for breach of contract, what part of the contract are you talking about?
I honestly cannot see how this site can be worse than say a blogger who hates x figure head for x government. And when x user pays x dollars they are then entitled to x service. Now I know over in the US of A things run on Capitalism but I thought there was still a thing called consumer rights (right?) and those protect deals. Eg x company can't run off with x users money just because the contract that both party's entered into is going to make them money or they don't feel like it.
I don't care what the sites about or who runs it, if they pay their monthly fees they should get a months worth of hosting subject to the AUP no matter what. (That is part of the free market other wise it wouldn't work.) Or has America lost that logic too?
I ate your fish.
This is probably just another part of the great war on terror. After concluding that most of the world hates america for it's freedom, america is now stricing back, demonstrating that there isn't actually as much freedom as some like to think, thereby reducing the number of reasons for the 'rest of the world' to hate them.
;)
Go ahead, you can mod me down now, in the name of freedom.
the right to free speech...
/. journal and on my website:
I have been discussing this in my
Please read this with the emphasis:
Congress law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Where does it say, 'You have the right to say anything you want, the government has the right to remove religious symbols from the public, etc etc"?
Also, when people say, "separation of church and state" they use it as if it were in the 1st ammendment. It IS NOT!
Before many slashdotters reply to this... take into account that the way the 1st ammendment is worded, technically copyright law was a law restricting speech. Was it not?
So again, I ask you, how is this removal of this material a violation of the free flow of information?
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
That flightsuit photo makes many a men insecure. Why, I had to install the SELinux kernel on my Hardened Gentoo install just to get my server happy again.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Essentially the only thing holding it back is the infamous mullahs, who have oversight over everything that takes place in the government and can go so far as to declare a candidate for any given office "too liberal," thus taking him out of the running.
So, it seems extremely unlikely that this website was a "mouthpiece of an oppressive regime" unless the mullahs had something to do with it, which from what I can tell is a stretch at best. With that in mind, the only assumption that one can make is that the closing of this website has something to do with the fact that the Bushies have Iran in their sights for the next misguided invasion. And what do the Bushies do when they want to go to war? Spread lies and false information, and try to cover up the viewpoint of the other side. With that in mind, I would not be surprised if they were behind this. However, considering the lack of details, I'll just have to don my TinFoilHat for now.
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
Not all Americans.
Most, certainly, yes.
But not all.
I hesitate to make the pun, but...speak for yourself.
It's only an insult if it's not true.
It's merely the US exercising the old propoganda machine in the run up to invading the country. They need to show us simpletons how evil those Iranians are, and thus the need to liberate them from some mythical oppresive regime. Yeah right. Just more crap from Bush Co. Iran is not some backwards natoin that needs rescuing at the hands of bloody Americans. Jeez, how gullible are we, that we allow our Government to hood-wink us into buying this crap? If I was Iran, I'd do a first strike against US interests,before the bastards come to me.
Now...if this isn't merely a collection of innocent students....all bets are off.
I wonder which war will take longer to admit defeat in, Terror or Drugs.
HA! I caught you!
You thought you could fool us all, didn't you?
Defeat will never be admitted in either one!
We all know the conservative pundits in favor of the War on Drugs will NEVER give up, as the "Must protect the children by cutting everything out of life we don't want them to see" crowd would have their political heads on poles if they did.
And the war on terror? Why on EARTH would the Conservatives give up an enemy like Terrorists after losing Communism as a "Give me power so I can protect you" bogeyman. No, as ling as there is political gain to be made from it, the War on Terror will continue, and everyone who opposes it will be portrayed as a weak willed coward incapable of taking a stand and begging for the world to take advantage of them.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Here is a copy of the letter they received:
Letter
It doesn't seem like the ISP gave them any real reason, so I'm also pretty suspicious. Shouldn't they have stated which part of the terms of service they violated? Seems shady.
Also for those who can read it, here is ISNA's own story about what happened:
story
I used to work for thePlanet and more recently a customer of their and had my contract breached and terminated without notice... aparently because the deal we worked out with them (contractial) was no longer beneficial to them anymore...
Also my buddies who compete with them doing server matrix style hosting got denied any room in the datacenter because ThePlanet guys were afraid they are a threat.
They are in the business of making money, plain and simple.
The article poster, and a fair few people commenting, are suggesting that since the site may have been run by nasty old men from Iraq's flunkies, rather than bona fide students, that it's fine to take it down...
So what you're saying is that freedom of expression is fine - as long as the people are expressing a viewpoint that you concur with?
No matter who the authors are it's still taking someone's freedom of expression away - you shouldn't be able to pick and choose who can express themselves freely, and the US Government definitely shouldn't be deciding that!!!
--- Band: Joey Ultra
The ends justify the means these days. We've lost any semblance of ideals. Privacy, the Constitution, freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable search...all shamelessly trampled when they become inconvenient in the war on terror.
Although at least this time we learned to keep our internment camps somewhere less visible.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
If you legalize pot then first it will be the true needy, then the milderly needy, then just the "oh fuck I don't want to deal with work head aches"...
A good friend of the family had lymph cancer in the 70's. He would get violently ill and couldn't eat from the chemo so the doctor (Yeah the doc, here in Canada) told him to get some pot. He did and smoked it only when he was getting the chemo treatments. He made it through the cancer and hasn't touched pot since he had cancer. Still alive, I asked him to refresh my memory only a few months ago as I was just ~12 when it happened. So that's one example of it saving a man from horrible nausea and building his appetite. He's no abuser.
Me in my 20's on the other hand...
Legal drugs like tobacco kill ~350K people in the US and Canada alone every year. Not to mention booze. People want to get high, its been done for thousands of years.
Trolling is a art,
or the proper sanctioning of the mouthpiece of an oppressive regime?
Is that possible? Who is to say what is proper? When does the one sanctioning become the oppressor?
and someday we all will. I remember growing up, reading all about McCarthy and the "Red Scare" in history class and quietly chuckling to myself thinking, "My God, we're so much more sophisticated now..." :(
You know, I'm not a Bush fan, but anyone who can rank The White House on the same level as Iran has shut down their brain. Your head is so far up your ass that we'd need ultrasound to read your face. You are stupid and ignorant beyond what was previously thought possible for a human being. If there was only a way to make you see clearly what an utter fuckhead you are, you'd IMMEDIATELY kill yourself in total despair.
After watching for a year, the US become more and more unfriendly towards the rest of the world, I decided they were not worth doing business with. I stopped visiting that country, transferred all my money back to Canada (I worked in US for a while and amassed quite a bit of money), and now avoid buying US products as much as possible. What I don't get... why are other non-Americans still doing business with USA?? There are much much better countries and entities to deal with: the EU, Switzerland, India, even Canada. Why continue to deal with a country that is so obviously hostile towards foreigners?
The Land of the free *cough* seem's to Approve of censorship?
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
Iranian Blogger Arrested
20 Iranian Bloggers and Journalists Arrested
Iranian President calls for Investigation of Blogger Torture
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's president called Sunday for an investigation into journalists' allegations they were tortured into confessing to charges such as insulting sacred beliefs and endangering national security after publishing articles critical of conservatives in the government.
The difference is that Iran does not continually tell the whole world how "free" their citizens are. The US is supposed to be the last bastion of freedom in the world. The funny part is, most western countries are a lot more pro-freedom than the US is. The sad part is that most Americans still think they are free. Want to test it out, try to "protest" at the next Bush event. So much for free speech, freedom of expression, freedom to dissent, or sadly, freedom to tell the truth.
You are free to do exactly what Bush tells you to do, nothing more. Want to complain, oh, then your a terror suspect, and get a room in Gitmo. Want to toe the line, here is a rifle, go die for a lie.
I hope Americans can manage to get their country back. 200+ years of struggle and hard work, all thrown out in less than 5 years under Bush. And no, this is not a Dem/Rep thing, it is a Bush thing.
He really believes that he has been charged by god to lead the free world? If you were an omnipotent power, would you really make your first contact through one of your less than average creations? And do you really think that an all forgiving deity would suggest killing thousands of innocents for oil? Really, if "God" wanted those people dead, do you think he would have to enlist the help of a semi retarded mortal to do his work? What ever happened to plague and pestulance. Why do American politics now so closely represent a Monty Python sketch?
Just remember, there are thousands of peopel who believe they were charged by god to lead the world. You can visit them at most any state run "psych" facility.
To explain, consider that Man, in his/her natural state, has no Man-made laws governing him/her. Laws, like government, are an artificial creation, and they are not the natural state of mankind. Therefore, the burden of proof is on those who would take away our rights, not those who would restore them to their natural state.
So it does not matter that the Constitution does not explicitly say "you have the right to etc., etc." What matters is that Congress shall make no laws restricting speech, which essentially means that we *maintain* our right to freedom of speech in the face of the State.
By extension, the separation of church and state is also in the Constitution. Instead of "you have the right to separation of church and state," it states, "Congress shall make no laws linking the two." The reason for this is that the State is a compulsory organization, whereas a church is a voluntary one. Linking the two would make whatever church is endorced by the State a de-facto compulsory organization. State religion was not part of our social contract with the State (in which we essentially give up power for protection in an artificial body.) Both the Church and the State are artificial institutions, in other words, but while we collectively allow the State to exist as a compulsory organization, we made no such contract with any church. Mankind in his/her natural state has no religion except that which is invented or passed down, and therefore we have a right to be free from religion unless we voluntarily give that right up (say, by joining one of our own free will.)
I hope I've helped to answer your questions.
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
As I wrote 23 years ago:
The grace period may be about over.
Seastead this.
Did I say it was? Do you know what the word 'also' means? I just love these erroneous and blind opinions about my posts, mind you, but I doubt it serves anyone well.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
If The Planet felt, for *whatever* reason, they were on the losing side of this deal, and they are prepared to deal with the possible repricussions of the doing so, they can break the deal.
In summary, to all the freedom-freaks: This has nothing to do with freedoms of any kind, except of course, the freedom for The Planet to act how they did. No government squashing of free speech, no freedom to be hosted wherever you please. Nope, nothing like that.Submittor ain't no word I ever heared about.
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/2 2.html
Educate yourself..
I'm not the devil.. just his advocate.
"extemporaneous speech"?
Well speech might be stretching it.
"Give him a few days at the ranch to practice a highly crafted and focus group tested message"
Make that 2 months followed by some warmups in front of a kindegarten audience.
Wait that is a recipe for disaster isn't it.
Amendment IX
... and I should read what?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
here they are
... or the proper sanctioning of the mouthpiece of an oppressive regime? that would be the American oppressive regime, right?
talking about mouthpieces, shouldn't FOX news be taken down as well?
Freedom of speech is there to protect unpopular speech - popular speech does not need extra protection.
Stephan
Since when does "I barely know anything about this subject" translate to "definitely not cut and dried one way or another"?
If I had mod points, I'd definitely give you a +1 insightful. Paragraph three gets to the crux of the biscuit:
So it does not matter that the Constitution does not explicitly say "you have the right to etc., etc." What matters is that Congress shall make no laws restricting speech, which essentially means that we *maintain* our right to freedom of speech in the face of the State.
Unfortunately many Americans seem to have forgotten (or never learned) that the wording of the Constitution was bitterly fought over by the founding fathers specifically because they knew the impact these words would have. They also knew the tendency of government to assume greater and greater powers, and they wanted to ensure that these tendencies could be curbed.
In times of war these restraints on government power are tested most severely, in part because of the desires of government and in part because the citizens tend to forget about the value of their own rights as they pursue the short-term victory.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
.. saying, "we hold these truths to be self evident" - which is what your point is ... self evident rights. The Declaration Of Indepence has NO bearing in judicial law accept only as it applies to our freedom from British rule.
... no it doesn't
A perfect union would imply that we are bound by the laws set forth here (on goes the wording of the constitution)
Where you are mistaken is that the Constitution was written for the American people. In fact, it was written for those that represent you. It was simply a limitation on the government not rights granted to you.
A lot of people confuse the constitution with the Declaration Of Independence
[The Constitution] states, "Congress shall make no laws linking the two."
Umm
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Firstly, if this is a "semi-official" (government-run or -connected?) news site, why isn't it hosted in Iran proper?
If for some reason that's not possible, the best thing one could do if they run a site like this is get it out of the "Land of the Free" United States and host it in a country that actually respects political* free expression. For example, the Iraqi resistance website is hosted in the Netherlands. I've come across a lot of similar sites run by organizations like HAMAS or the Hizballah, and IIRC they were hosted in the Netherlands, too. The Chechens used to have their website hosted in Lithuania, until they posted a communiqué from Shamil Basaev after the Beslan incident, whereupon they got temporarily shut down (probably under pressure from Russia); now the site appears to be in Sweden.
So your best bet if you're running some site like this is to look at Europe, particularly Scandinavia, and ignore any claptrap you hear about "Constitutional" protections in the US (much like the government itself does).
--
* In the US, you can get away with some of the most blatant racism and the bizarrest pornography, all under the ægis of freedom of expression, but anything that comes a bit too close to pissing off the State will quickly find you shut down.
Liberty in your lifetime
Mind if I give you some pointers? I've done something like that before.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
proper sanctioning of the mouthpiece of an oppressive regime
Its only free speech if its something that at least a significant number of Americans think is ok - like Bon Jovi, otherwise its "terrorist propaganda" and we can't possibly have that sort of stuff on our free Internet can we? i mean for fucks sake who will think of the children if there's terrorist propaganda around mixing with their Tellytubbies websites?!! you can't go around giving terrorists a mouthpiece (because a website is like standing on a very large soap-box and shouting at people in the street with a mega-phone, scaring small children and hurting peoples hearing) also terrorists need to be censored because they use their websites to post secret messages to each other like "lets blow up the airport at 8pm, fuck you man Bon Jovi is cool!" (its a known fact that websites are the only way of disseminating information globally and easily without detection).
Again, you tell me who is going to think of the children? because it sure as hell isn't going to be the Iranian government, not unless Khatami has his own 'no child left behind' fund.
Ok so if it is some sort of terrorist website, there needs to be evidence - trials, quotes such as "The website was clearly used in planning a terrorist attack on this location at this time, here is the original message" But if this is just some right-wing propaganda website by Khamenei supporters then it should be treated with the same freedom of speech rights as a right-wing Bush site, just because the guy is a dick doesn't mean he can't talk about the dangers of not hanging little girls, and how letting adulterers off lashing is a liberal conspiracy, just like Bush supporters talk about gay marriage as a violation of their rights and why abortionists are responsible for terrorism.
Just remember to think of the children before you post.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Good point. Done in a very aggressive tone, so some inexperienced moderators may be tempted to mark this as a flamebait, but all in all, a very good question - how is the rest of the non-muslim world supposed to co-exist with a religion that commands the destruction of non-beleivers (infidels).
How is that made to work? Is there something I don't understand here? It looks to me like the Muslim doctrine has a 'poison pill' built into it - be like us, or die. With language of that nature in the Koran/Quran/whatever, how can we find peace in the world without everyone conforming to Muslim beliefs? Are the Muslims going to budge on this issue? Or is the world condemned to eternal war?
I was just playing devils advocate there ;-)
Personally I think alcohol and tobacco are far more dangerous because they're so omnipresent. Try to pass by a high school [outside mormon land] where the students are not 50% or higher smokers.
Of course they smoke because
a) They're serfs
b) They think it makes them mature
c) Omnipresence
d) They're told not to.
See I watched [and am watching] my parents waste away because of tobacco. That's all the incentive I need not to smoke [oh that and the critical thinking I'm capable of].
Though my original point still stands. Maybe prescribed pot [e.g. sold over the counter] would be a good compromise. Generally I don't think any doctor would prescribe street pot to keep your health up. Who knows what's in it!!!
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Sure it didn't. And when the NYSE revoked al-Jazeera's press credentials, that was also purely a business decision.
Americans put their hands over their hearts and preach to the world about freedom and human rights, and then turn around and torture prisoners, and attack freedom of the press, not to mention .... and then are bewildered that the world doesn't love them.
The US Government requires a specific license to provide any goods or services to anyone in iran.
It's probably the case that the ISP realized they should have asked for this permit first, but to cover their asses they pulled the site asap.
I'm sure the newspaper can host their site in a country with less restrictive export controls - i'm sure they can find somewhere in europe.
And this one:
And so on and so forth...
Essentially, they can revoke my contract for many subjective reasons. They would of course refund my money, and I would of course take it to another ISP. However, I can't imagine any ISPs would not have similar clauses in their contracts, and I can't imagine that any responsibly ISP would enter a contract with an iranian student news agency without some very creative flexible exit clauses.
So... how do you figure it was a breach of contract?
+2 Insightful for reminding people of a truth that should be self-evident but apparently isn't
While i agree with most of your post. If women had total freedom to their bodies .. that would give moms the ability to kill their kids at any age .. there has to be an acknowledgement to what "age" a fetus become a life. Since we all have the right to life. Abortion in many cases is just a cop out for irresponsible parents.
if you try,
go figure!
TODO: 753) write sig.
I think he has just observed the behavior around here.
you can find our reaction at : www.internet.rsf.org You'll find more information about ISNA.
surely there must be hundreds of companies elsewhere (France comes to mind) that would be more than willing to host them.
Shouldn't have even sold the contract in the first place.
/ sa nctions/
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac
The U.S. is just a remake of Germany in the thirties. Instead of Jews/Jews the targets are now Arabs/Muslims. History is just repeating the same mantra (with some labels altered) and the same outcome can be expected: a major war with huge profits for some and huge losses for most of us.
"how is the rest of the non-muslim world supposed to co-exist with a religion that commands the destruction of non-beleivers (infidels)."
Please get your facts straight before posting here...
What you and the other bro said is false. Islam does NOT what so ever command the destruction of human beings no matter what religion, race or sex they are. Show me a quote in the Quran which implies what you are saying, then I will believe you.
The word Islam comes from Salam, which means peace. That is pretty self explanatory I think.
Morbo told me it's mostly Humans, those street bums you never notice going missing.
A psychopath can't tell the difference between right and wrong. A sociopath knows the difference - he just doesn't care.
http://forums.servermatrix.com/viewtopic.php?t=131 04
granted, no official response from TP....
From The Planet's acceptable use policy:
..."
"Customer shall not post, transmit, re-transmit or store material on or through any of Services or Products which, in the sole judgment of the Company (i) is in violation of any local, state, federal or non-United States law or regulation, (ii) threatening, obscene, indecent, defamatory or that otherwise could adversely affect any individual, group or entity (collectively, "Persons")
further down:
"The Customer is not permitted to post any material that is illegal, libelous, and tortuous, indecently depicts children or is likely to result in retaliation against Company by offended users. Company reserves the right to refuse or terminate service at any time for violation of this section."
and a little bit further down:
"Company reserves the sole right to suspend service to any Customer located in our datacenter for violation of the AUP without notice. Company reserves the right to terminate service without notice for any violations of the AUP."
Looks to me like the terms of service and acceptable use give The Planet the right to terminate service for almost anything.
Don't like that? Move to another ISP.
Why is this news?
You know your a Good Guy/Gal when you have a change to be the Bad Guy/Gal, and you weren't.
If you're on the left, it's the Evil Bush Administration [insert gratuitous reference to bombing here].
If you're on the right, It's just good business [insert left bashing here].
Me, I believe in Hanlon's Razor.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
From m-w.com:
So, cutely, the verb and the noun have essentially opposite meanings, which is a problem if you then try to verb the noun. Certainly I did a double take when reading "the proper sanctioning of the mouthpiece of an oppressive regime" :)
(l)user alert
It would probably be more honest if very large corporations were considered independent Governments, rather than companies. Delcare their offices as embassies, and formalize the relationship that already exists anyway.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It doesn't take many soldiers to drop lots of bombs. It's possible just bombing could have the effect the neo-cons want. There's some great discussion on The Diane Rehm Show yesterday. You can hear Seymour Hersh talk about this and decide for yourself if he's crazy.
The thing to remember is Iraq is very weak right now and Iran is quite strong. For decades the US has kept those two at a balance to keep them killing each other instead of taking control of more oil. Now we've nearly destroyed one and so we have to knock Iran down to the level of Iraq. You should also think about the Kerds. There are Kerds in Iran and those controlling Iran fear them. Dreams of Kerdistan could lead to a massive civil war in three countries.
I don't think anyone outside of the president's inner circle, and a few members of congress would come close to supporting it.
That has never stopped them before. I'm sure we'll see more and more "aggressive" moves against Iran as time goes by. All the time Bush will deny anything is going on, so there's no reason to debate it. Then "BAMB!" we're attacking Iran and we aren't allowed to debate during a war either.
...is the religious dictators who run the country and pick the candidates.
Umm... so in other words it's not anything remotely like a democracy.
There's a zillion comments in this thread pointing out that the Planet has every right to terminate any contract they want for (nearly) any reason they want. That's true, but it's not the point -- the point is that, if an ISP terminates a contract because they don't like the speech, that information is vital to me when deciding whether I want to host there. If a top five ISP terminates a contract for that reason, then lots of discussion of the decision is merited because it will be setting standards for the entire industry.
...
Likewise, though it's more farfetched, if the ISP made that decision at the request of the US government, I *definitely* want some discussion about how I can expect my ISP to react if the government ever asks them to stop supporting *my* speech.
Of course, the comments pointing out that we don't know a damn thing about what actually happened are right on target. I'm hoping this story will bring some pressure on the relevant parties to explain it, though, so it's not like it's pointless from that perspective either
Should that be included in "free speech"? That's the kind of stuff they've been doing.
I think any kind of website that advertise killing/hating nations or races in the name of any type of god or because it's not their way of thinking should be stopped at all cost,,,,free speech expressing your opinion to stimulate people to think before they act and making people realize stuff is good as long as it's not radical thinking instigated by fear of change/other race/religion.
This is just another hint that 'Freedom' TM is coming to IRAN.
After all news agencies of the members of the 'Axis of Evil' TM have no right to be there to broadcast the arrival of 'Freedom' TM.
but doesn't that fact make your constitution about as hypocritical as is humanly possible?
I thought rights were "inaliable" and "granted by God".
Now if we could all just choose to turn off Iran and all of the middle Eastern bozos that think they are entitled to tell us how to live our lives. what's that? It's what the US does to everyone else? Well if everyone else didn't have their hand out for their Uncle Sam, then Uncle Sam wouldn't be telling them what to do.
In Arabic, Islâm means "submission" and is described as a Dîn, meaning "way of life" and/or "religion."
Islam has been used as a reason to kill people of other religions both in the past and the present, using verses from the Koran as inspiration, such as:
"Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (9:29)
Of course not all (ie most) Muslims will want to go and do this, since it's not very nice to go and kill unbelievers, but there are some who have done so and will do so in future, such as Wahabists.
Of course we all have free speech. And of course an ISP can shut down whatever they want which belongs to them. However I think this quote is most appropriate: "Freedom of the Press is limited to those who own one"
--- Keith
You're not reading much EU press, are you? There's a huge backlash just starting over there against militant Islam with government officials uttering "we have to stop them" sorts of lines. Just watch over the next few years. This "we'll support X simply because America support Y" attitude is going to blow up in their faces.
Lessee... I'm an American, hosting a site.
This site I'm hosting is run by some guys who live in a country, and this countries leaders are constantly spouting off about how people from my country deserve to die.
This presents a clear action to me: Change your countries politics and attitude towards me and my fellow Americans, and we can do business. Otherwise, you're on your own. I refuse to do business with terrorists (when you constantly call for the blood of Americans, you are acting as a terrorist acts, inciting hatred and fear).
Another possible reason is that they just didn't want to deal with the potential of being investigated by Big Bro' for hosting content of "an axis of evil"?
Don't like it? Go to their competitors! It's that simple. They made a decision which they can obviously live with, and it's none of our business why they made it when you get right down to it.
I don't even know why this is on Slashdot. Our country imposes trade embargos all the time. Why, when one business, or individual decides to do what's right, instead of just taking money and turn the other cheek, does this become a headline?
Either way... Their business, and their decision. Move on...
Why shouldn't the Planet terminate the contract? That's up to them - they have to make decisions to effectively run their business.
The website can simply move to another ISP (outside of the US if it prefers) and the US economy suffers by having one less service exported, based on a business decision by one of it's companies.
Now if consumer ISPs (under pressure from the US Government or not) tried to block people from reading the site - now that would be censorship. As it is, give it a few hours and the site will pop back up somewhere else. No big deal.
Unfortunately, as always, someone will try and make this into a political issue. Based on the complete lack of information we have on the subject, it's dangerous to assume anything.
We have all probably been trolled. Nevertheless...
... and I should read what?
here they are
Obviously you need remedial help in reading comprehension. This supports my hypothesis that religion does in fact have a deliterious effect on people's ability to reason, and hence think, i.e. it makes people stupid, by crippling their ability to use whatever native intelligence they might have been born with.
You (presumably) read the very words you posted, quoting the 9th and 10th amendments to the constition, and failed to comprehend them in a meaningful way, in the context of other discussions refuting your rather pathetic assertion that the constitution does not require freedom of speech, separation of religion, and asserting that if the constitution doesn't spell a given right out explicitly, we by default do not have that right.
You probably won't understand these words, but I would suggest a reading tutor and some basic, remedial reading comprehension courses.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I'm curious if they are being accused of violating some part of their service agreement with their host or if their host is terminating service for not 'liking' the content?
If the site (no I haven't seen it) was posting things like "death to infadels!" and such it could be seen as 'hate messages' which is commonly prohibited on service agreements. But if they are being booted for simply having a opinion or viewpoint that the host feels is unpopular then I think that canceling their service is contrary to 'pure' american values.
(when you constantly call for the blood of Americans, you are acting as a terrorist acts, inciting hatred and fear)
I really take issue with people who make the distinction "American" in situations like this. How about Russian? Or would you not care then?
I think the potential to be investigated by Big Brother is more threatening than the Iranians. And it's really interesting that you chose that wording, because it's becoming that way. The poster asks if we're only censoring an "oppressive regime" as if it makes a difference. It's NOT ok for China to censor information and provide only its perspective.
And you know what? It's not OK for the United States of America to do it, either.
Also, man, "Do what's right" is very very subjective. Lying in the state of the union 2002 (? was it 2003? I've been out of the country) saying there are thousands of tons of nerve gases, mustard gases, etc to send our people to war. And the people who are RESISTING are wrong?
Never has 'WTF' been more fitting.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Bush has been advocating the spread of American freedom, while encouraging troops to disregard the geneva convention, because dirty arabs should have no rights. So where the grandparent said America, substitute Bush. There's one bad-guy here, and it's pretty simple.
...and prelude to war! ..crap...etc...
Yeah right! It is really business but on highest level... Imperialism!
America, land of free...blah...blah
The "old men" are just the Iranian equivalent of our supreme court...duh.
"The U.S. is not the shining pinnacle of freedom it once was?"
...
... I love when I hear people say hey, there was nothing in America before the settlers came, "just some Indians." Implication Indians were nearly equal to nothing.
... hell just fought a war 100 years before, that supposedly, enabled some more rights as one of the consequences, guess they really didn't mean anything. That was the pretend freedom rights.
... Freedom in the U.S. means you have the right to agree with the moral stupid, screw anyone over you can if it's legal, and better yet, if it's not legal, if you have enough money and power you have the right to make it legal- ethics be d*mned!!!
I about fell on the floor laughing my a$$ off. The U.S. has never been a shining pinnacle of freedom other than in it's own narcissistic rhetoric. Granted it's better than some places by leaps and bounds but that's in no way implies it's actually shining baston of freedom. But, then again, the places that we compare ourselves, it takes very little to be better than them.
I mean a lesson history,
- 400 years of slavery (last of western world to abolish it). Everyone is free accept those african and indeginous American people. Well, it's ok, cause really they aren't human
just 3 / 5 ths of a person.
- Don't forget the near 25 million indians that were exterminated
- Civil Rights movement (1950's) ( I thought we already established rights)
- I'm tired I just realized my list would go to about a million if I sited every example of the hypocracy of American freedom, but hey, we are better now, than we were then- right?
So there you have it. If you have money and power for the most part you are free to do what you want. If you don't, well, then those who do are free to do with you as they please. So there you have it. Pretty much sounds like every other system on this green earth I know.
The USA has an Equal Time rule when it comes to TV broadcasters. It came into being because the Gov recognized that the power of TV could be abused to promote only one side and is used to help counter it. Essentially, in some cases they "can" be required to broadcast it.
m eru/equaltimeru.htm
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/equalti
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Sure it is. What's this country coming to? Free speech keeps us free. Are we afraid of what they're saying?
Big strong us.
There will always be places for coded messages, if that's the fear. If it's about propaganda, we need dissent. Without dissent we grow very weak.
I had no idea that only those of german descent could commit atrocities. I guess we should all be releaved to know that Americans, Brits can do no wrong.
Changa hates change.
See the Pruneyard decision, in which the California Court ruled that the shopping center was obliged to allow the protesters (or were they signature gatherers?)
.
In the other 49 states and DC, however . .
hawk
Here's the link to the T&Cs. http://www.theplanet.com/legal/terms.html
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
The terrorists... killed 2 thousand.
And they weren't even Iranian.
Changa hates change.
someone who has the means to do it and reads /. is always welcome to contact the guys and host their website, hence closing this discussion once and for good.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
In the US and most (all?) other areas, ISPs are not Common Carriers although they retain certain aspects Common Carriers. ISPs are quite free to "protect" their networks or "customize" their services as they see fit. ISPs have to walk a fine line with this, if an ISP can be shown to have too much control over the CONTENT of what is passed over their network, they may cause themselves to be liable for illegal acts that occur on their network. Terminating a user's service is not normally considered to be censorship. Any halfway clued ISP's contract will say that the ISP can terminate service for any reason, or for no reason at all.
Historians and access to them (internet) have made the US a bit wobbly on that pedestal.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
..are the Democrats rushing to Iran's side to provide support.
In stead of bitching about what a cesspool of oppression the US has become, just start yer own friggin' ISP and host the friggin' site. Geez, there are probably ten year olds running hosting companies, it's easier than getting a job a Kwik-E-Mart.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
I'm pretty certain they do.
I work on a fairly large website and we are required to block all connctions from iranian domains and prevent anyone with a name on the governments watchlist from creating an account.
Obviously we can't be 100% in our blocking, but we do put in a lot of work to comply with these regulations.
Any company with a US prescence should be required to do the same.
If one assumes the U.S. government pressured the hosting company to shut down the site then one can also assume that the U.S. may actually follow through with their plan to attack Iran. Pure speculation though.
-illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
Sure it was. When 99% of your clients are complaining about insanely bias news stories everyday and the other news stations are reporting other things, you begin to question the bias news station. If BBC suddenly started airing nothing but anti-Bush demonstrations, Iraqi anti-American riots and Cuban anti-torture gatherings you start to question whether BBC is really acting in the interest as a news station or if their just out to cash in on anti-American sentiments.
You wanna show a few images of dead Americans or anti-Bush riots? Fine, go ahead. You do it daily without focusing on other topics? You're not a news reporter anymore, your just an anti-American reporter out to cash in. The Middle East is a big region, don't try saying theres nothing else to report in the area.
If you want to attack a government, go attack China. They censor the internet. Freedom of press? North Korea censors the press, go yell at them. Torture prisoners? Go protest about Russian gulags. People who are bewildered as to why the world doesn't love them? Lets see, the Iraqis are hated by the Iranians and vice versa, North Korea and South Korea are still at each other's throats, England and the EU still argue over the Euro, Saudi Arabia keeps getting yelled at about terrorist training camps by the world, and everyone but the U.S. has a bone to pick with Israel. The U.S. isn't the only 'hated' country in the world. I didn't barely touched Asia (theres still Vietnam, India, Cambodia...) and I didn't even mention Africa (Somolia, South Africa, Congo...)
So how do you explain people like Falwell telling his flocks for whom they should vote, and the strong combination of Church & State in the Bush Administration?
According to your definition, the US is no longer anything remotely like a democracy.
Taiwan-China, Iraq-Kuwait (formerly, guess thats gone now), China-Japan-Korea (Remember what Japan did to the mainland in WWII). Hell, there's still state sanctioned slavery in Africa, if you want to include that.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Read the article, or at least give a better summary. The law is originally from 1917 and blocks trading with "enemy" contries. Iran is on that list. It's a law of unintended consequences, not a deliberate act.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Geeze, can't even get people to correctly post what is going on anymore. Supreme court ruled 6-2 in that with A conservative and liberal judge diseenting. That means that two LEFT as in LIBERAL judges ruled in favor of allowing that. You act as if Bush appointed the entire supreme court himself. Getting really tired of this BS.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
When we got rid of the The Fairness Doctrine in 1987, we sent a clear message to the world that the United States was not interested in free speech for everyone.
Nearly all webhosting is just a service you sign up for, no contract is signed. As for T&C, well let's see here: "Company reserves the sole right to suspend service to any Customer located in our datacenter for violation of the AUP without notice. Company reserves the right to terminate service without notice for any violations of the AUP."
Looks like they, as almost all hosts, specificly say they can can your account at any time them want, without notice. For that matter, the operators of the site may have recieved notice. The company would notify them, not the world.
See in a free county, you have to be free to do what you want with your private property. In the case of a company, it means you have to be free to refuse service to people. To declare that they MUST host this site is to infringe on their freedoms.
that'll teach 'em
Or They could just get comcast and get ripped off like the rest of america.
Rhetoric about "freedom" has become about as empty (and calculated) as rhetoric about "supporting the troops" lately. There certainly are Americans who seem to be willing to make an ends-and-means calculation about the sorts of torture that happened at Abu Graib.
My Southern Baptist relations dismissed those photos as one of the necessities of fighting this kind of war, to use one example, and they're all for spreading "freedom" in the world. Big backers of W's, those folks, and just fine with torturing a few people to get it.
Personally I think there's both moral and legal responsibility at a higher level, of course. But some of the same people are okay with both "freedom" and what happened at Abu Graib.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Are you kidding? No seriously, is this a joke?
Do you really think that the language of the Constitution in modern terms is the only way to find it's meaning? Even using the language of the Constitution, what part of "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" don't you understand? How is this anything but, "you have the right to say anything you want"?
The second part is nonsensical, no Constitutional scholar has ever claimed that the government has the right to remove religious symbols from public. The government may not establish any religion, therefore it may also not endorse or use government property to endorse a religion. This means that government property and funds cannot be used to place specific expressions of faith. As a private group, you have access to public lands like parks, just as anyone else, regardless of religious belief. You have the same rights to meet there as any other group. On the other hand, no government official may use his office or government property to say, display the 10 commandments. That is a violation of the establishment clause. I pay taxes, if I think the 10 commandments are blasphemy, then how would this not violate my liberty of conscience to have my tax dollars going to maintain such a monument? Do you honestly think the Constitution allows us to violate the rights of people who hold minority religious views?
Your claim that the 'separation of church and state' doesn't appear in the Constitution is nothing but pedantry. The phrase was used since the English Revolution. It was proposed by numerous Europeans and rejected there. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist writings concerning the 'separation of church and state' make it quite clear that the first Amendment was intended to mean a 'separation of church and state'. Your attack over this is nothing but the blind leading the naked. You seem to think you've found some linguistic gotcha, but in order for it to work, you have to disregard the writings of the Founding Fathers. This sort of trickery is a tactic of totalitarians, not people who fight for freedom. Don't worry though, you've got fans in Hegel and Plato.
And no, copyright is not a restriction on freedom of speech. When have you spontaneously come up with the lyrics to a song or the script of a movie that has already been written? Copyright covers the act of duplication, not the original creation of thoughts or expression thereof.
The removal of this material has yet to be resolved as a government action or a contractual dispute. Someone already mentioned the DMCA, which makes it unlikely that The Planet would raise any sort of objection to content, unless their lawyers, as someone else mentioned, were worried about violating the Patriot Act. Either way, The Planet is probably in a legal quagmire and this was the safest move. Does such a move stifle the free flow of information? Yes. Is it somehow sinister? No idea, still not enough info.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
My post was moderated down.
I don't appreciate this radical Islamist interpretation myself (I'm no Muslim, either), but unfortunately my opinion doesn't count a lot in the world
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
We'll never be able to know because it's censored now.
I can say that they may have been taken down for terrorist propaganda. I don't really know or care. What I do know is that account was a HUGE pain in the ass. They expected us to admin their server. They were compromised numerous times and attacked other hosts on the network as part of an internal to the data center dos net. They were rude every time they called in or opened a ticket. Both demanding and imperious in mein. I am fucking glad they are gone good riddance.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4202617.stm
You have no idea what a "neoconservative" is; these are definitions you've made up yourself (along with others who wish to vilify neoconservatives and make "neocon" a dirty word).
Neocons are not the ultra conservative religious right.
Neocons are not killers of abortion doctors.
Neocons are not gay bashers.
Now, Bush IS a neoconservative. But there seems to be a disconnect here. Because if you think that Bush is anywhere CLOSE to this ultra fanatical religious right you think about, you have no fucking idea who those people are. Hint: it's the Jerry Falwells and James Dobsons. Think some of those people and their followers got Bush elected? You bet. But that's not because Bush is one of them, it's just that viewed on a practical scale, Bush (or any conservative) is probably closer to their ideals than, say, Kerry.
Your attempt to associate neoconservatism with abortion doctor-killers, gay beaters/killers/bashers, and ultra right-wing fundamentalists is a ridiculously laughable one, but sadly typical among many liberals and leftists today. Go ahead, try to redefine the word. You and others like you have already been successful to an extent. But that's not what neoconservatism means, at all.
Neoconservatism is based generally in the following ideals:
Free markets and trade
More social investment than traditional conservatives
Aggressive and non-isolationist foreign policy
Unilateralism
Opposition to communism and non-democratic ideals
Your rants on religious fanaticism and gay bashing are utter fantasy.
If you're actually interested in neoconservatism and what it really means, and not what you think it means or what you'd like it to mean, see:
Neoconservatism
And, critically, if you want to see what the entire US foreign policy is based on, see:
Statement of Principles
Interestingly, liberals are mortified when they read that. I have no earthly idea why, as it represents a critical and fundamental understanding that we have an obligation not only to ourselves but to the world at large to spread concepts of freedom and democratic principles for positive gain.
If you can't understand why we're in Iraq right now, here it is in a nutshell:
- NOT because of WMD (even though that was, correctly, presented as the primary reason at the time, since it was, again correctly, assumed that we would indeed find large stockpiles of said weapons, thus justifying the mission on its face)
- BECAUSE Iraq was a largely secular state, there wouldn't be as violent an Islamic fundamentalist backlash as if we had entered, say, Saudi Arabia
- BECAUSE we already had a history with Iraq, and the case could be relatively easily made to the US populace
- BECAUSE we have limited resources, do NOT have 500,000 or more troops to commit, and do NOT want the draft that all the liberals think Republicans want
- BECAUSE of those limited resources, we can only afford change on a single front, and have hopes that this will catalyze democratic reform in neighboring states, or at least begin the processes
- BECAUSE something needs to be done about Panislamic radicalism. Why Iraq, then, and not Saudi Arabia? Because going into Saudi Arabia would be viewed as a war directly on Islam (which this is NOT, by the way, dumbass) even more than going into Iraq is, and would simultaneously cause the oil market stability in the entire mideast to utterly collapse, which would gravely hurt the US economy as well as that of Europe
- BECAUSE the FREE flow of information and ideas and freedom of religion, government, speech, association, coupled with security and rule of law, have a chance at a quick modernization of several borderline nations in the mideast (e.g., Iran, Jordan, Egypt), and could have far-reaching long term implications for our own s
Actually, at one point my company was approached by Iran Television to provide them with streaming services online. We declined the account mainly on advice from our legal department which pointed out that the US does have a trade embargo against Iran and that US companies are not supposed to be providing services to Iran, especially the Iranian government.
We would have been using EV1 or The Planet as NOC sources too so now I see it was wise to not bother.
Err, Muslims aren't a race.
See this pdf:
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION AND INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS - The receipt or transmission of postal, telegraphic, telephonic or other personal communications, which does not involve the transfer of anything of value, between the United States and Iran is authorized. The exportation from the United States to Iran of information and informational materials, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, and any transaction incident to such exportation is authorized.
Hmmm....
I always thought that terrorists were a diverse bunch religiously. A few groups to think about:
1) Tamil Tigers (Hindu, inventors of the suicide bomb tactics)
2) IRA (still somewhat active outside N. Ireland, Catholic)
3) Various unionist militias in N. Ireland (unknown how active they are at present, Protestant)
4) Various groups in Columbia and Venezuela (Mostly Catholic)
5) Various groups in India (Hindu and Muslim)
6) Various Israeli groups (Jewish)
Hmmm.... Better become a Buddhist? All Hindus, Christians, Jews, and Muslims must be terrorists!
The only reason why we keep hearing about the Islamic terrorists is that these were the militants we (the US) recruited from all across the Islamic world to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now, when we want to protect or "interests" in the area, we have to contend with the monster that we created: A global collegiate network of Islamist terrorists.
If we were doing the same thing still in South America (as we were doing in the 1970's) we might hear all about the Catholic Terrorists in Columbia and Venezuela. Oh, and their allies, the Provincial Irish Republican Army. That is another global terrorist network that we don't hear anything about. And yes, there are connections to both through the Palestinians too because both sides want to play on the idea that they are in solidarity with an oppressed group.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
This is just a variation on the heckler's veto argument. It's disappointing that it seems to work so well.
Since you decided to pull out the philosophers :)
When you speak of this idea called freedom, people tend to couch it in practical terms: the freedom to do something, or freedom from something (the freedom and coercion duality you pointed out). I would argue that type of freedom is meaningless: it is always self-referential, and always defined in terms of those things which oppose it.
Suppose you lived in a prison state. Every aspect of your existence was enforced, however, that enforcement was in perfect accord with your own wishes. Are you still free? You are able to do anything you wish...
except not live in a prison state.
In essence, your duality isn't much different than a prison state. The often quoted: "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" sounds more like a sentence of eternal damnation: you are a slave to freedom. All of your actions are compelled to serve this idea just as effectively as if someone were holding a gun to your head. Refer to de Sade's analysis of the duality of a master and slave relationship to get a better idea of what I mean. For all practical purposes, the master becomes the slave. How can this be "free"?
Take the duality even further: what is freedom from freedom? The obvious answer, slavery, is contradictory within itself. I would argue that freedom in and of itself isn't so much a meaningless concept in as much as it is a concept that cannot be defined. The "god in a box" problem: the definition itself is limiting. I would argue that a bumblebee is freer by virtue of the fact it has no awareness of its limitation. Freedom from freedom then becomes being free from the concept of freedom completely, and dissolves the duality completely.
As far as Iraq is concerned, in as much as the people didn't break the bonds of Saddam's rule by themselves, but had democracy foisted upon them; I would agree with you. It is just another form of slavery.
What happens if the people vote to have Saddam installed back in power? What then?
lol, yeah, made an ass of meself right there. You are right about the meaning of Islam. My bad.
As for the quote from the quran, note this bit:
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you
This does NOT mean fighting the ubelievers.
200+ years of struggle and hard work, all thrown out in less than 5 years under Bush. And no, this is not a Dem/Rep thing, it is a Bush thing.
Talk about a short attention span. Bush is just the latest installment in a long series. He is more brash and arrogant, and speaks bluntly. That doesn't sit well with many people (although aparently it does with 51% of America).
But study the presidencies of LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Clinton. Bush is more aggressive, but other than that, he has similar policy goals. Remember, the Democrats voted for the war and the Patriot act. To say that Bush himself is the sole cause of everything that's wrong with US Policy is the height of ignorance.
(BTW, I voted for Kerry)
Hi! I work at a colocation facility that's home to a lot of servers, foreign and domestic, located in the bay area.
Months back, a server that hosted the domain 'iranmania.com' was red-tagged by the NCIS (Navy Criminal Investigative Services) for removal.
I don't know why, but hey... figured spreading the word to increase awareness was a good thing to do.
--Very very very anonymous coward
Generally I don't think any doctor would prescribe street pot to keep your health up. Who knows what's in it!!!
Actually pot is one of the few street drugs that is very hard to cut. Because it is unproccesed organic matter (at least here in the US, I'm told in the UK hashish is more prevelant) and has a very distinctive look, you can't just mix it with a similarly-colored powder (a la cocaine or heroin).
Then there is the issue of "dusting". In my high school drug education class, we were warned that any pot we bought off the street could easily contain PCP. That's not how it works.
It just doesn't make business sense. If a dealer gets some PCP, he will charge more for pot that is treated with it. He's not going to be wasting product on an unsuspecting user when he could be making more money by advertising it as a feature.
If it were a controversial KKK web site shut down by The Planet, what would be the reaction here?
What is considered as a pure business decision really? If a restaurant refuses to serve, say hispanic people, claiming due to business concerns, what will happen?
... then you run the thinking that maybe there are just bad people out there?
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
>> ... details are virtually unknown about this...
/. chooses to splash it as a story complete with conspiracy, evil coorporations, and authoritarian governments.
/. staff might have asked the ISP to explain their action. They might have asked ISNA for a statement. They might have asked how ISNA is funded, what it's editorial policy is, and what kind of relationship it has with IRNA? They might have asked how any news organization based in an authoritarian regime like Iran can manage to be anything other than complicit in the regime's actions, if it isn't directly controlled by the regime?
And yet,
If they had any pretensions at all to being responsible (not responsible journalists, just simply responsible adults) the
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
It should be noted that the PEOPLE want to be free
I know I'm going to get flamed for saying this; but...
History has shown us that if the people want to be free well enough to sustain a free society, they will themselves attain that freedom. They will protest, fight, strike, etc. until their freedom is won.
If they are not passionate enough to have done those things, invading their country and deposing their leaders will result in nothing other than what we're seeing in Iraq.
Certainly there have been some protests in Iran over the last few years by moderates and secularists in university, etc. But we haven't seen anywhere near the level that would indicate that Iran is ready for a revolution of our prompting.
I know this may come as a shock; but they don't wish to be Americans, or to be just like Americans. I know that as proud Americans we are likely to wonder "who wouldn't want what we've got, which is all a product of our style of government?" And while I tend to feel that way myself, I do in fact have the answer to that question, and it is: people who are not us.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
Is there such a thing as:
"government property"
I always thought that government property was taxpayer property.
I suppose you have no objection to immenent domain
Also Congress shall make no law - means exactly that. The Constitution was setup as guidelines for the government by the forefather governing body. It was NOT rights given to the American people.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Where you are mistaken is that the Constitution was written for the American people. In fact, it was written for those that represent you. It was simply a limitation on the government not rights granted to you. That's my point. The government does not *grant* rights, it takes them away. We have all the rights in the world without government, but in creating a government we give up some of those rights for protection. So, "a limitation on the government" and a right are the same thing. A limitation on the government means that an individual living under that government's rule will not have that right taken away. A lot of people confuse the constitution with the Declaration Of Independence .. saying, "we hold these truths to be self evident" - which is what your point is ... self evident rights. The Declaration Of Indepence has NO bearing in judicial law accept only as it applies to our freedom from British rule.
But the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are drawn from much the same sources - primarily the human-rights philosophers of the Enlightenment, and most specifically Locke. Therefore, my argument (or, more precisely, that of the sources which I draw it from) is not limited to one document or another, or one state or the other; it is universal.
[The Constitution] states, "Congress shall make no laws linking the two."
Umm ... no it doesn't
Then how do you interpret "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
I mean, we did some pretty horrific things in WWII ourselves, we're just lucky we had someone truly evil to compare ourselves against.
But no, racist wasn't appropriate. I should've called you naive instead.
But that wouldn't have made you mad enough.
Changa hates change.
Has the american media/govt convinced the american people that these were isolated incidents by "rogue soldiers" rather than a policy handed down by the govt to the soldiers?
that was fast.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
Yup, government property is taxpayer property. That means you, the taxpayer, share it with me, the taxpayer. How does that change anything I said in my previous post? Call it taxpayer property if you want, it still has to adhere to the same rules I laid out.
I don't have objection to immanent domain, when it's reviewed by judges. Do you have a problem with immanent domain? How does that relate to the topic?
Your final statement makes no sense. The Constitution was created to replace the Articles of Confederation. It was written as a contract between the people of the US and it defines those rights (guidelines? what are you joking?). Rights don't inherently exist, you must either create your own with force or negotiate recognition of them with other people. We, as a people, decided to sidestep a lot of the mess that goes along with that by defining some basics about rights. There was never an intention to arrest change and create some sort of prototype "natural rights" environment, which it sounds like your getting at. The Constitution did not give us rights, it was a recognition and definition of rights.
Also, how do you square the fact that the copyright clauses were in the Constitution before the Amendments? It would seem that copyright actually precluded the 'freedom of speech'.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
This is the use of power to suppress the speech of those without power. I don't need to know whether the message suppressed is vile or good to know that.
This is being done by (at the behest of?) agents of the US government, and therefore it is a violation of the first amendment. (Read it again. To me it doesn't say that speech of the good guys is protected, or that speech of the citizens is protected. It says that the government shall not act to limit free speech. I'll acknowledge that this requires interpretation, but that's what it means to me.)
You can argue practicalitites, but the government has been so distorting things in the name of "the practicalities", that I don't give that argument any weight anymore without a *LOT* of proof. And the evidence for that proof had better not have been in the custody of the government, because there is sufficient evidence that they "manage" evidence that is in their custody, that I don't trust the accuracy of that, either. What do you think is beyond their ability to forge, and why wouldn't you suspect that they might not forge evidence that favored whatever cause they were for this week?
Paranoid? No, I don't think so. Just cynical. But watching the government has made me QUITE cynical, and there isn't much that I would put past them.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
If you want a verse that states it literally, read 9:29 instead:
It doesn't get much more explicit than that in the Qur'an; there are hadith that are even more straightforward. At least we unbelievers get to pay Jizya if we're among the People of the BookAs a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
I haven't been keeping track of the status of ISPs so I can believe what you are saying is true. If so then the difficulty is upon us. There is no clear boundary between ISP and publication.
Seastead this.
> definitely not cut and dried one way or another.
actually, it is.
censorship is never an appropriate response to information you don't like or approve of, no matter what the source and no matter what it is saying.
the only proper response is to counter information you don't like with arguments and information of your own.
censorship is self-defeating anyway, all it achieves is to drive the information underground, which feeds the paranoid delusions of conspiracy theorists - 'it must be true, otherwise "they" wouldn't bother to suppress it'.
Apparently, they arrested the 'anonymous' tipster who told them about the four chinese illegals entering the country. Jose Ernesto Beltran Quinones was detained by Mexican authorities, and the FBI wants to extradite him. Why? Because he informed the 'good guys' about a plot to smuggle Chinese illegals into the country. Illegals he said planned to set off a dirty bomb made of nuclear oxides.
Chinese illegals are being deported after being forced down in the plane smuggling them through Texas. Guess who co-owns the plane? Afzal Hameed, president of a flight school that caters to Saudi Arabian flight students. You can read about some of their clientele here. However, no dirty bombs were found.
(More details available over at Michelle Malkin's blog.)
The moral of the story? Unless you're the President of the United States, you're in deep shit if they don't find the WMDs... But I'm not saying anything, because I don't know about any terrorist activity.
When the draft comes, I hope the 51% of Extremist Christian Fundementalists that finally elected Bush are the first to be drafted and slaughtered by the Iranian army.
Violence begats violence.
An eye for an eye and world would soon be blind.
Also, how do you square the fact that the copyright clauses were in the Constitution before the Amendments? It would seem that copyright actually precluded the 'freedom of speech'.
You misunderstand the meaning of Amendment.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Don't forget JPGFM (Just Plain Guys From Montana).
Sigs are for the weak.
How about technical difficulties, or the news agency was late paying their bills? This is usually the case when a site goes down. How about the US government wasn't involved? This is also usually the case when a site goes down. But no, we can't expect the usual, that would be too boring. We have to make some weird-ass speculation on ZERO evidence. Sheesh.
Please ignore the flippant statements and stick to the assertions. I really don't want to try and defend statements that have no meaning outside of the context they were in reply to.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
stick to the assertions
Your assertion was that, since securing exclusive rights to authors and creators is in the Constitution proper and freedom of speech is the First Amendment, that the rights of authors and creators supersedes freedom of speech.
And... again I say... I think you misunderstand the meaning of Amendment.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
BBC pointed me to http://www.isna.ir/news/Main.asp? so I think it's still up, hosted somewhere. Too bad they don't have an english language page.
During the UN arguments with the Taleban I found their web site (taleban.com or taliban.org or something). I checked it once in a while for the alternate opinion. In July it was hacked. After 911 it disappeared completely.
During the Vietnam war we learned the value of getting news from the other side. Our side lies, their side lies, but between the two you can catch more truth than listening to one side alone. Today, http://www.al-qaeda.org/en/ does not exist, and it should. We need it.
Read http://english.aljazeera.net for some Arab news views. Good stuff.
No, the bottom two sentences were flippant. The assertion you allude to was a rephrasing of the logic the parent poster had used. The idea was that the poor logic would be obvious, thus showing the lack of reasoning behind the parent's post.
Actually, you're debating something I haven't asserted, you're debating an illustration of poor logic, that is all.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Ever hear of indentured servitude?
Seastead this.
The reasoning in reality is twofold. First, Russia is simply too big for us to take over, so we'd never be able to do it without backlash. Second, "guiding" Iraq is profitable to us, where "guiding" Russia wouldn't be.
I have never been of the opinion that the U.S. is to blame for the Middle Eastern mess, or solely to blame for the current Middle Eastern mess, but the simple fact is that the situation in Iraq is largely due to errors in policy. We thumbed our collective nose at the rest of the world in moving into Iraq, only to find that it's come back to get us in not being able to garner assistance now that we could use it. You say that because of its importance......as though they should recognize the importance and suck it up, and help. My response is, why don't we suck it up, admit that it's more important than our own national pride, and publicly and overtly apologise for thumbing our collective nose at the rest of the world? I dare you to try doing it. When you figure out why the rank and file in the U.S. will refuse to admit they've erred, you'll begin to grasp why Europe hasn't joined in. Welcome to politics, indeed.
Virg
I don't claim that we invaded Iraq to control the oil, but I do recognize that Bush's friends have made a whole lot of money off this war.
Changa hates change.