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.

Comments

Just business

[HairyCanary]

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.

Re:Just business

[Directrix1]

Also, why wouldn't they just get hosted in Iran if its such a big deal.

Re:Just business

[pete6677]

Some ISPs obviously find spammers profitable and some don't. That is why spammers tend to get booted until they find an ISP that will offer them a "pink contract", costing a lot more than normal service. Many hosts will accommodate a controversial site or service, for the right price.

Re:Just business

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful?

The BBC is a news corporation, you imbecile moderator. The suggestion was pure flamebait. For shame.

As to the free market stuff, I agree in general - however, if there is even a whiff of US gov't interference (I mean, even if the ISP was afraid of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act bogeyman), things are totally different.

Re:Just business

[eln]

While this is true, I personally won't ever be moving my hosting to The Planet after this news. While my site may not be as controversial as the one that was pulled, it does contain political speech, and I'd hate to think that my hosting company could and would arbitrarily pull my site for supporting political views that they disagree with.

While I'm probably in the minority, and The Planet is unlikely to go out of business because of this, they will likely lose at least some potential business.

Re:Just business

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, your worst fears are about to be realized. Previously, in the US, we would talk about making the world a better place. Now, we are talking about a safer place. The difference is huge - and will involve discomfort to those that are against the US.

We still at least arrest those the go "too far", such as torture. But we now will kill to defend ourselves where necessary.

The US no longer cares what the rest of the world thinks. They have shown themselves to be dishonorable.

Re:Just business

[TimTheFoolMan]

Be careful about ascribing to malice what can more easily be ascribed to apathy, ignorance, or simple ineptitude. (I'm paraphrasing... I know.)

In short, you're giving America (both the country, the gov't, and individuals) credit for a great deal more organizational competence than we deserve.

Tim

Re:Just business

[Catbeller]

So, if the U.S. government, or more properly, the neocons now running the White House, State, and the Pentagon, don't like something on a website, say... criticism of them... it's in an ISP's best business interests to simply acquiese and deny the WH's enemy access to the web through their machines.

Applied generally enough, the neocons can deny anyone they like access to commercial servers in the U.S. And abroad as well, if they care to make the usual threats through the usual channels. And they will care to.

In other news today, the Supreme Court says they've no problem with officers setting dogs on your car and person at a routine traffic stop to look for drugs, reason or no reason.

Every day, another door clangs shut on us in the soon to open New NeoCon World Order Prison.

Re:Just business

[lgw]

America simply acts in its perceived self interest. Ignore the preaching and propaganda: that's all just words. A country that isn't aggresive in protecting its self interest doesn't retain control of its destiny for long.

Now, there's a legitimate argument over whether our recent foriegn policy actions have made us safer, but the goal was to further our interest, not to make other nations happy.

By accusing the US of hypocrisy you only expose your own naivety. Of course we act to protect ourselves (wisely or otherwise). Of course we pretend it's all done from the moral high ground for the best interests of everyone. How else could it be, in the real world?

Re:Just business

[SpongeBobLinuxPants]

Sometimes consumers will stop shopping at (or visiting) business and their affilates because they do not agree with what they are doing, or who they are doing business with. How many people have you heard say they are boycotting WalMart because of what they do. Not shopping somewhere is just as much free speech as telling people you don't like WalMart. If said business is getting angry letters, or emails, or threats from other customers that they will not continue to do business with them if they do not act, they may drop 1 customer to keep many customers happy, it's good business sense. It's not The Planets job to protect the students right of free speech.

Re:Just business

[That's Unpossible!]

Americans put their hands over their hearts and preach to the world about freedom and human rights, and then turn around and torture prisoners

I guarantee you the Americans espousing freedom and human rights were NOT the same people as those ignorant assholes in Abu Ghraib.

It's like saying Muslims are terrorists, just because 99% of the active terrorists in the world espouse [a bastardized version of] Islam.

You probably also think Slashdot represents a single hive-mind, and are confused when some people here love to watch the latest movies, while others are boycotting the MPAA.

Try to realize that the world is not black and white.

Re:Just business

[gowen]

Ignore the preaching and propaganda: that's all just words... By accusing the US of hypocrisy you only expose your own naivety

Err. No. In your own admission, the US acts in a manner entirely at odds with the values it professes. It says its trying to promote liberty, but in fact is looking after its economic interests.

Now, regardless of whether that's a bad thing or not, I think you'll find that that's a pretty good definition of hypocrisy.

Re:Just business

[Anonymous Coward]

AJ is probably a lot less proproganda then say Fox News. They are have managed to piss off even the locals with some of thier news reports, while say Fox News would get down and give Bush a hummer.

Re:Just business

[Anonymous Coward]

The ignorant assholes in Abu Ghraib were indeed ignorant arseholes. They were also working for the American federal government, carrying out orders for officials higher up in the American federal government. These officials were, ultimately, carrying out legal instructions issued by the then-White House chief counsel Alberto Gonzalez, who decided torture as anything that caused less pain than serious physical injury or an organ failure.

Gonzalez, of course, was appointed by freedom-loving GW Bush, who sits atop the federal government

Now, you may not approve of torture, but, bearing in mind that 99% of the world would consider Alberto Gonzalez's legal advice to be nonsense (water-boarding is clearly torture, even if it doesn't lead to "pain equivalent to organ failure"), then it is quite clear that the American state does

put their hands over their hearts and preach to the world about freedom and human rights, and then turn around and torture prisoners.

You may not be happy about this, but it's what your state does.

Incidentally, there's no contradiction between loving (ones own) freedom and torturing other people. This appears to be the US government's viewpoint. (Torture [preferably of non-USians] is acceptable, so long as it keeps us safe). A barbaric viewpoint, certainly, but not unusual in historical terms.

Re:Just business

[Rei]

> By "active terrorist" I am referring to those actively killing innocent people

So was I. Not all of them got a kill in the past year, but many were quite active. And, as I mentioned, that was just the 'A's (and I included numbers as well).

> If you look at the number of people killed by terrorists in the last 5 years

I did. Why don't you?

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33777. ht m

Before you start speaking all of this racist stuff about 99% of terrorists being Muslim, you should actually take a look at the numbers. You'd discover that the largest number of terrorists attacks in the past 5 years took place in Latin America. Islamic terrorism beats Latin American guerella terrorism attacks in terms of casualties, but that's only because of a small number of staggeringly successful attacks. And it's NOWHERE close to 99%.

Of course, this doesn't go into direct state perpetuated terror, which is really unfair (shock and awe, for example, is almost a literal dictionary definition of terrorism - and lets not even get into what the Russian army has been doing in Chechnya or the Israeli army in the OT), but you get the picture.

error

[grub]

or the proper sanctioning of the mouthpiece of an oppressive regime?

You by by an oppresive regime.

Servers are private property.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Servers are private property.

[rdc_uk]

" When will people realize they don't have a "right" to be hosted?"

If you have agreed a contract, abide by the T&Cs, and keep up payment; you have a RIGHT to be hosted, unless the contract is ended under its own T&Cs...

Except in the land of the "free" it appears ;)

Re:Servers are private property.

[Inzkeeper]

Be very careful with this one. If I have a private business, I can arbitrarily decide who I will serve and who I won't? What if I happen to dislike serving minorities? You see what a slippery slope this becomes.

Lets face it

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Lets face it

[Anonymous Coward]

Then They Came for Me
by

First they came for the Muslims, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Muslim.

Then they came to detain immigrants indefinitely solely upon the certification of the Attorney General, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an immigrant.

Then they came to eavesdrop on suspects consulting with their attorneys, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a suspect.

Then they came to prosecute non-citizens before secret military commissions, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a non-citizen.

Then they came to enter homes and offices for unannounced "sneak and peek" searches, and I didn't speak up because I had nothing to hide.

Then they came to reinstate Cointelpro and resume the infiltration and surveillance of domestic religious and political groups, and I didn't speak up because I had stopped participating in any groups.

Then they came for anyone who objected to government policy because it aided the terrorists and gave ammunition to America's enemies, and I didn't speak up because...... I didn't speak up.

Then they came for me....... and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Stephen Rohde, a constitutional lawyer and President of the ACLU of Southern California, is indebted to the inspiration of Rev. Martin Niemoller (1937)

Re:Lets face it

[Marthisdil]

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.

So what you're saying is that our businesses aren't free to do as they choose within their own rights and regulations?

Oh, wait. To do that would be considered freedom.

Re:Lets face it

[ifwm]

You mean fear mongering, right? Play to the fears of the masses by constructing large conspiracies of action against (FILL IN THE BLANK).

So, um, how is what you're doing different?

Censorship

[QMO]

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.

Not a First Amendment Issue

[goldspider]

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.

Re:Not a First Amendment Issue

[I8TheWorm]

I understand your arguement, but I don't think you fully understand the parents'. On the one hand, it seems you think it's in the private company's "duty" to post what the website's owners want, regardless of content. After all, freedom of speech does not necessarily mean freedom from speech.

On the other hand, private enterprise is just that... private. Unless that company could be proven to have discriminated based on race, sex, age, or disability, they can allow/disallow anything they want. To force them to allow any/all content would be nothing more than oppressive. We not only have our constitutional rights, we also have a free market (with a few stipulations posed by the UCC). I, as the owner of a very small software shop, have the right to say no to RFP's from anyone I choose. To force me to do otherwise would be oppressive, and I would likely close up shop. As the business owner, I have the right.

Re:Not a First Amendment Issue

[jafac]

Why do people think they are owed a medium for their ideas?

Because the airwaves regulated by the FCC are PUBLIC property. If you're a citizen, it belongs to YOU.

That's not to say that I disagree with Planet's right to cut off the website, they have that right.

But the notion that only monied interests should be able to (by virtue of some imagined ideal like a mythical "Free Market") have the privilege of free speech - ignores the fact that Public Research Funds created the Internet, and that the Public Airwaves are regulated by the FCC specifically to provide a forum for those who weren't "born rich" to have the right of free speech. Regardless of whether the Invisible Hand wants to hear "deviant talk" or not.

No, it means do some god damned work and get the resources. Save, assemble like minded people, coordinate with other groups.

In other words. . . the First Amendment does not list these as prerequisites for having a RIGHT of free speech. By listing these prerequisites, you're trying to turn a RIGHT into a privilege.

Or perhaps...

[rhsanborn]

...its foolish to speculate without any information or evidence to support any claims whatsoever.

Re:Or perhaps...

[GearheadX]

I concurr. People saw that it was shut down and seem to be automatically assuming things one way or the other. Unless someone has their Great Karnak hat and crystal ball out and is reading the future, I seriously doubt anyone (save for the parties directly involved) has any clue what's going on.

But since Yellow Journalism is back in a big way, scary headlines sell.

ISNA has well-known links to terror

[Anonymous Coward]

As an Arab-American it filled me with shame the first time I saw the ISNA site. It portrayed Islam in a negative light by supporting extremist ideals and organizations. For example:

• 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.

Re:ISNA has well-known links to terror

[sanctimonius hypocrt]

I don't dispute what you say, but if the site was up I could see for myself.

Re:ISNA has well-known links to terror

[Anonymous Coward]

As somebody whose friends have been victims of misguided hate crimes against Arab-Americans, I am happy to see this extremist site gone.

I won't argue about the nature of the site, but I think your own feelings are misguided. Your friends aren't victims of the extremist nature of the site, but victims of the extremist nature of whoever attacked them. We will have peace when people can see extremist websites, shrug their shoulders and move along. It sounds like some Americans aren't capable of doing this.

The hate crimes you speak of, are they really a direct consequence of extremist websites, or would they happen anyway? Are they perpetrated by rational, peace-loving people, or racist people who regard all those with different looks to be enemies? You can remove all the extremist websites in the world, racists will still harrass those they hate. They did this before the web was even invented, and they will continue this as long as people like you try to blame things on others and the racists themselves.

Your friends aren't victims because of websites, they're victims because of the racist nature of Americans, reflected everywhere, including many many racist comments on Slashdot that get modded up regularly.

Re:ISNA has well-known links to terror

[Jagasian]

In summary, you are justifying xenophobia, racism, and other forms of systematic prejudice because they are "inter-woven".

Other religions are evil? Sounds like specious reasoning if you ask me. The 3 big religious books (Torah, Bible, and Koran) all contain hate and intolerence. It is a fact. You can try to justify it with the age old claim of "out of context", but it is right explicit in each book and actually requires intense re-explanation and reinterpretation in order to make it disappear.

With regards to the Torah/Old Testament, in the New Testament we have stories detailing the intolerance and hate espoused by the Jewish religion. Take for example the good samaritan, where samaritans were an ethnic minority despised by the mainstream Jews. The moral of the story was that prejudice, xenophobia, racism, etc is bad, your ally, your friend, your neighbor is the person that is good towards you.

Which brings me to another point. The 3 books also contain love, happiness, and other good stuff. They are each a mixed bag, just like people themselves.

So explain away that the sky is blue, but I still have eyes of my own.

Nobody has a right to a website

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Actually it's Persian...

[Eptisam]

Might look like Arabic, but it's not the same...

Ebay makes decisions like this all the time.

[Kenrod]

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.

Re:Ebay makes decisions like this all the time.

[Quixote]

I don't think so. It is not like The Planet is giving them free space.

The DMCA(?) makes exceptions for ISPs in content violation cases just because they are ISPs: they are not supposed to (or be able to) monitor what goes over their networks.

If ISPs start censoring speech like this, then how long before they're held liable for music files being transferred over their networks?

Re:Putting on the Tin-Foil Hat for a second ...

[cowscows]

Well, as much as some in the administration might want to attack Iran, I really don't think it's going to happen (unless Iran does something extremely provocative). While still dealing with Iraq and sort of Afghanistan, the US does not have the will or the soldiers to do much in Iran; no matter how tough the administration talks. I mean, I guess we could bomb it, but that would accomplish nothing beyond tarnishing our international standing even further. But I guess that could happen.

As for a 'regieme' change, a la Iraq, we're a little short on soldiers, and I don't see a draft being a very popular option. Even if we could manage to do it with available soldiers, I don't think anyone outside of the president's inner circle, and a few members of congress would come close to supporting it.

Perhaps if the upcoming elections in Iraq are wildly sucessful beyond anyone's craziest dreams, but I wouldn't count on that.

"definitely not cut and dried one way or another"

[tbase]

So let's each pick a side and start making wild assumptions and speculation.

cut and HUNG OUT TO BE dried..

[museumpeace]

"...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.

+5, Funny

[pb]

Iran, also not necessarily a 'bastion of freedom'... :)

Re:+5, Funny

[ShamusYoung]

America: Let's give those Iranians some American freedoms.

Um, the country you're thinking of is the United States. The US government didn't have anything to do with shutting off this website.

First,, we'll bomb you, then give you it.

The country they bombed was IRAQ, not IRAN.

Iranians: Um, we don't want yuor freedoms, we're happy being Iranians.

How can "having freedom" mean "no longer being yourself"? Is "lack of freedom" their defining characteristic?

, Whatever happened to you respecting the rights of others? America: How dare you Iranians speak your own mind, we don't want the likes of you dictating to yourselves what you want.

To sum up: tyranny enforced by locals is better than freedom enforced by foreigners? It should be noted that the PEOPLE want to be free, versus the GOVERNMENT that doesn't want them to have freedom. This is quite different from the people themselves saying "we don't want freedom." This is a handful of mullas saying "we don't want the people to be free".

We're going to cut you of at the mouth by not allowing you to speak for yourselves.

The US government was never involved in this case. Even if they were, how is this "not allowing them to speak for themselves"? A website was taken down. That's it. Happens every day over at Tripod.

Iranians: Fuck off you dim-witted cunts, yuo thikn the rest of the world are as stupid as Bush followers?

I missed this part of the article where your hypothetical Iranian (or Iraqi) told the US to fuck off.

Also, it makes me giggle when you have the nerve to call someone ELSE dim-witted and stupid. You have no grasp whatsoever of the original article OR about the subject to which you are attempting to thread-jack.

Re:+5, Funny

[Spark00]

To sum up: tyranny enforced by locals is better than freedom enforced by foreigners

er, "freedom" doesn't need to be enforced.

Re:+5, Funny

[jafac]

Iran, also not necessarily a 'bastion of freedom'... :)

However, the issues facing Iran today are very complex, and deep, and even well-informed Westerners would have a difficult time getting a pulse reading, even with their finger on the vein.

Events dating back to the 1953 US backed overthrow of a democratically elected government to prop up the Shah, later overthrown in the 1979 coup and hostage-crisis, US backing Saddam in the incredibly bloody Iran/Iraq war - which lasted 10 years, and decimated an entire generation of Iranians, and the US's later backing of Iran through illegal arms sales (Ollie North, Ghorbonifar, Poindexter. . . . . Bush) etc.

There's a point of view within Iranian culture, that the Mullahs have sucked the life out of Iran for too long. Some who share that view want a western-style democracy (roll the clock back to 1953). Some want a return of the Shah. Some just want to continue (or accellerate) the long road of progress and reforms that *have* taken place since 1980, under the Mullahs. America's recent sabre-rattling has certainly bolstered the Mullah's radical, hardline position, and weakened the moderates. Still, it's anybody's guess how this will all shake out, and it depends heavily on what's going to happen with Iraq, (whether there's a civil war, whether the Shiites end up with a significant chunk of what was Iraq), and whether the West does anything about Iran's provocative moves WRT purported nuclear weapons development.

It's probably not just a coincidence that this website was shut down. It's probably not a good thing for the West either. This may weaken the Mullahs from a resource and propaganda perspective, but it makes them look like the victim here. And that helps them. If it was intentional, it was not wise. Sounds like the people who like to think of themselves as the champions of Freedom in the world, need to be reminded of the reasons WHY Freedom is a good thing. History is littered with reasons. You don't have to look to hard to find examples where oppression backfired.

Re:+5, Funny

[dajak]

er, "freedom" doesn't need to be enforced.

Freedom does need to be enforced, if it is going to be any better than the one Hobbes described as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". I don't care for that kind of freedom.

We are slaves of laws so that we can be free (Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus) -- Cicero

Where there is no law, there is no freedom. -- John Locke

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. -- Thomas Jefferson

Freedom and coercion go together like light and darkness. Freedom in itself is a meaningless concept.

What the US did in Iraq was at odds with the fundamentals of democracy. The American people cannot "democratically" decide anything for the Iraqi people. The only thing it can do within the bounds of democracy is to stop obstructing Iraqi freedom and wait until the Iraqi people free themselves. Strictly speaking all international relations are an obstruction to democracy, of course.

Re:+5, Funny

[cayenne8]

' Neither is America a "bastion of freedom". '

Well, IMHO...it is compared to most of the rest of the world. Sure, there are increasing infringments on our individual freedoms, but, we're still free enough to bitch about it and fight for them....

Re:+5, Funny

[Znork]

"The only truly significant success story was Japan."

Japan was also fairly far along towards democracy (for that time) before the military takeover.

So, there are pretty much no success stories at all when it comes to democracy by-the-sword.

Truth, Justice, OR the American Way

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:Truth, Justice, OR the American Way

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if the ISNA is run by the tyrants who run Iran in the name of some imaginary "god"

Even if The Planet is run by the tyrants who run America in the name of some imaginary "god" ...

please. think about what you write.

But yes, The Planet accepted their business and there is a contract. They can't go back on that contract without proving that the contract was broken by ISNA. Was it? Yeah, most ISPs have a "uhoh, we made a mistake accepting this customer" clause, not that it would hold up in many cases ... but still, notification of why the service was stopped is pretty much a requirement.

Interesting.

[pb]

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.

Maybe....

[I8TheWorm]

..just maybe, it's a business decision, rather than

So what should we make of this? Government conspiracy, corporate arrogance, or the proper sanctioning of the mouthpiece of an oppressive regime?

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

Re:Putting on the Tin-Foil Hat for a second ...

[Loacher]

"unless Iran does something extremely provocative" like (alledgedly) amass weapons of mass destruction (Irak), or democratically elect a socialist president (Chile)?

We all know the kind of provocation the US has historically needed, and that sending lots of soldiers is not the only way the US has abused its power and screwed some other country over (see Chile again).

Re:Putting on the Tin-Foil Hat for a second ...

[saintp]

You're too optimistic. Check the timeline for Iraq:

September 2001: WTC attacks. Less than 3% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was connected.

September 2003: After months of grumbling, Saddam Hussein is formally fingered as having connections with Al Qaeda. Still almost no one believes it.

March 2004: Six months of ubiquitous and furious propaganda later, just over half of Americans believe Hussein has connections to Al Qaeda and WMD, and want to invade Iraq. Flash forward to today. After years of mumbling about Iran being part of the Axis of Evil, we have White House staff refusing to rule out military action. Shortly, you'll see the start of another huge propaganda blitz. We'll pull out of Iraq as schedule (continuing, of course, to govern by proxy), and the fact that no more Americans are dying will punt the story from the evening news. Americans will forget about Iraq and the government propaganda will replace it with Iran before people have time to think about silly things like the economy.

I'm counting on an invasion of Iran this fall, as soon as the temperatures start to drop. If we aren't there by 2006 at the latest, I'll be very surprised.

Watch out, trick question

[doublem]

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.

Re:On the side of The Planet

[akb]

As a customer you should be concerned that they may terminate your service on short notice based on political content.

Freedom Of Expression Only OK For Some?

[pcardno]

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!!!

What it means

[HangingChad]

The BBC Reports that Iranian government officials were quick to accuse the US administration of pressuring The Planet to terminate the contract.

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.

Proper Sanctioning?

[surefooted1]

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?

Re:I don't get it

[oborseth]

Because there is lots of money in the US and you don't have to like a countries government to want to do business with its citizens.

Re:Here's another chance to complain about Dubya

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

LOL

[pb]

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.

lets not forget ...

[runnin247]

... that sometimes it's beneficial to break contracts when your position isn't changing as originally thought. No one is expected to stay in a losing position.

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.

Re:ISNA's own story about this

[kaitou]

Well it says all the ISP really has to say there. That they reached a decision to terminate hosting, as they have a right to do.

I run a small hosting company, and I personaly see nothing wrong with deciding whether I want to host someone or not, based on my own judgment.

It has absolutely nothing to do with free speech, and more with the hosting company deciding they do not want to be associated with a particular site/message. Every hosting company, small ones like mine included have the right not to do business with someone, at their own discretion.

Why do people immediately think "government cencorship" here? A business has a right to decide how it wants to do business.

They still have their freedom of speech, but I do not have to rent them their soapbox if I don't want to.

Re:On the side of The Planet

[aardvarkjoe]

As a customer you should be concerned that they may terminate your service on short notice based on political content.

As a customer, he should keep an eye on the situation rather than jumping to conclusions on the reason for the termination based on a Slashdot article.

Just business

[1u3hr]

Um, the country you're thinking of is the United States. The US government didn't have anything to do with shutting off this website.

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 only thing holding it from being a democracy..

[Anonymous Coward]

...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.

Re:Putting on the Tin-Foil Hat for a second ...

[Anubis350]

actually, smart one, the burden of taxes falls squarely on the middle class. We're the ones who 1) dont have incomes that max out the graduated tax and therefore are paying a far higher percentage of our wages into taxes than the rich. 2) cant afford elaborate tax shelters like the rich. 3) don't qualify for the subsidation that those who are poor do.

Re:Well, maybe not "human rights, "anyway

[ianscot]

I guarantee you the Americans espousing freedom and human rights were NOT the same people as those ignorant assholes in Abu Ghraib.

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.

You couldn't be more fucking wrong

[daveschroeder]

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

Re:You couldn't be more fucking wrong

[daveschroeder]

The problems is that he may indeed be doing something "for worse" -- that these actions may promote militant Islam rather than discouraging it. There is no question that the motives you provide are in large part the motives of the neoconservatives; there is also no question that these ambitions are broad and grand. The question is whether their methods will succeed. Time will tell.

I think this is a concept lost on many (like Sens. Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer in the last week or so): no doubt it's creating more problems, more militancy, and making us "less safe"...in the short term! There is no consideration for what might be if this strategy is ultimately successful.

All of the opponents of the Bush policy - and their supporters - cheer on this idea that the Bush policy is an incredible failure, and is actually hurting us and preventing us from fighting the war we should "really" be fighting, that is, against al-Qaeda.

So, naturally, my question is: how, exactly, do we fight this was against "al-Qaeda"?

Hold Saudi Arabia accountable, you say? Perhaps stop supporting the Saudi royalty and its oppression of the populace, and the entire infrastructure and system that breeds terror? Sure! Let's just do that today. Oh, wait. Saudi Arabia holds critical pricing control on the world oil markets, and any instability in Saudi Arabia, or any hint that there is any overt action by the US planned against Saudi Arabia, kiss petroleum market stability goodbye. And a large chunk of our economic stability for a long period of time. Not to mention any action against the extremist elements within Saudi Arabia would be viewed as the biggest assault on Islam itself yet. Yes, we know Saudi Arabia is a problem. It will be dealt with.

Or maybe stop supporting Israel? What a grand idea! Let's ride the moral relativism train: the Israelis and the Palestinians are equal, and neither side is good or bad, right or wrong. In fact, what the Palestinian militants do with suicide vests is merely the same thing Israel does with US-built F-16s and Apaches! Um, wrong. Israel is our shining star in the mideast: a sliver of democracy and freedom in a sea of backwards radicalism and militancy. If you put aside your own prejudices and consider that freedom and democracy may be inherently "good", and consider that some of the current administration literally believe this with the core of their being, you would understand that any suggestion to leave Israel to fend for itself would be the height of ridiculousness and lunacy.

Or how about get out of the mideast? I'm not going to even answer that one, except to say:

1. Anyone who even suggests this, wholesale, is a dumbass
2. The US is not to blame for everything wrong in the world
3. It is not EXCLUSIVELY, or even mostly, US actions that have led to the current situation in the mideast

Or perhaps the Kerry plan, and that of other liberal Democrats in the House and Senate: we need more troops, and we can get Europe to help! Oh, oops, wait: didn't the supporters of those same groups of people tirelessly say that we don't have enough troops, and if we need more, we'll need a draft? And then simultaneously agree with statements that say we don't have enough troops in Iraq (to me, implying that they think we do, in fact, need more troops)?

Or get out of Iraq altogether, which would be a nightmare, and would actually result in far more death and destruction that they purport to want to prevent?

Why aren't any of these people arguing for European participation? I don't care if Bush directly and personally said "FUCK YOU" in each nations' native tongue (if he could muster it); no matter how diplomatically snubbed they feel, THIS IS A LOT FUCKING MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT, and they have admitted as much.

So, pray tell, why the fuck are they still doing nothing, almost two years later? Especially given that they're just as aware of the real, not imaginary threat of Panislamic radicalism?

Questioning this strateg

Islam and Terrorists

[einhverfr]

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.

Re:Freedom is slavery

[arkanes]

In the late 19th century, Kuyper (you will not know him unless you happen to be Dutch) argued that a people, by virtue of numbers, is always able to remove its elite as long as you ignore cross-border effects.

Hogwash, unless you get persnickety with the definition of cross-border. There's all sorts of control points on a nation, and you don't generally need to be a majority to have them. Historically, technology has been used. The pyschological advantage of control can't be overestimated either, slavery is a good example here. Control of water sources is a great way for a minority to control a majority.

Kuyper may have meant that if the majority didn't care for their own losses, and manged to throw off all the chains of psychological and class warfare, then they can always overcome the ruling minority. That's true to a point, but I'd take issue with the "always". Take prison riots as a counterexample, which occasionally succeed, but more often are suppressed.

Kuyper's statements make for good rhetoric and probably morale lifting speeches but kinda fall apart in the real world.

Re:Freedom is slavery

[dajak]

I'd say you're a pretty lousy ruling elite if you don't make sure that control of whatever makes you elite stays in your hands, though. Maybe he only meant stupid ruling elites :P

I'd say he meant late 19th century elites. It was largely true then, but right now globalization, science and technology seem to have seriously stacked the odds against the masses. Still the "elite" also has an information problem: who can be trusted with the control points?

The "control points" are safe if they are outside your direct control. That's one of the ways foreigners can play a role. "Outsource" the key jobs to people who cannot have a reason to participate in a revolt.

Iraq's control points are the oil fields, the Shatt-al-Arab and its harbors, and the bank account where the money comes in. Saudi Arabia's control points are the oil fields, the walled city of Dhahran and its harbors, and the bank account where the money comes in. Only foreigners and Saudi Aramco employees live and go there, and the US defends it. In both cases all of them are out of control of the people because they cannot go there. That's the tragedy of these countries: there is nothing but the oil trade.

Re:Freedom is slavery

[dajak]

I would disagree. You omitted the last part of the statement : "except not live in a prison state". In essence, you seem to be saying that if your cage is comfy enough, that is "free". Think of it a different way: mandelbrot set.

Mandelbrot is too abstract for me. Another answer I considered is that your prison state is an absolute monarchy, where only one has that freedom, since the total freedom of choice of one interferes with the freedom of choice of any other.

Since I do happen to live in a real world monarchy: the metaphor of the golden cage is common here, the monarch being the one person who is categorically denied his freedom of speech by the constitution. The monarch also doesn't vote, cannot choose his own career etc. The subjects cage the monarch, and the monarch is there to be a symbolic caged master because the people never could decide on another master.

One of the things I learned from Ofra Bengio's book "Saddam's Word", is that Saddam's rule was not Orwellian in character. Saddam was there because he was the strongest warlord, and the people are divided. Hitler could never have become a communist. Saddam could easily switch from being a pan-arabic nationalist to being a fake muslim fanatic. Saddam was an absolute monarch.

A Christian Fundamentalist Totalitarian State might seem more free if you happen to be of that mindset.

Indeed. Since freedom interferes with the freedom of others, there is only a limited amount of it that everyone can have at the same time. The trick is to align it with what people generally want. Most people can live with the restriction that they cannot interfere with the physical integrity, and honor and dignity of other people, for instance. Some can't.

To some freedom is a democracy, to others a theocracy, monarchy, or communist state. Others want to be a Nazi executioner. Democracy does not help those who fail to recognize what the viable options are, and fail to recognize who really is their master. Democracy, free market rhetoric, and libertarianism make very strong assumptions about people's autonomy. Liberalism (in the European sense, and including Kuyper's political calvinism) and socialism assume that people first have to be liberated by educating them before they recognize their true interests.

If Kuyper were right, no oppressive empires would have ever been made. You underestimate the power of bread and circuses backed by the threat of force.

Within his own frame of reference, Kuyper, who was a calvinist political leader and philosopher, is still right. He would note that the people cannot free themselves because of their own moral defects. Because the citizens of those oppressive empires weren't true calvinists. To oppress true calvinists indefinitely you would have to take their bible, and that would have to happen first. Human nature as it really is, is not part of his equation. People get the government they deserve. Other types of liberals and socialists would have a similar answer on how to 'safeguard the revolution'. The true marxist revolution will come when a people is ready for it.

You can't escape this problem by having no state. That's not freedom, but a Hobbesian state of nature where anyone can be your master. In Somalia you aren't free, even though there is no state.

*insert Orwellian comment here*

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- George Orwell

Even the Catholic church could never end truth. It is always there to be rediscovered, when the people are ready. At any time, some people will feel oppressed while others feel mostly free to do what they want. Orwell's state exists only as a caricature, that is as much a description of the democratic world we live in as it is descriptive of the Soviet Union, or medieval Europe. We make caricatures of our enemies.

Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible. -- George Orwell

For people with an Orwellian outlook this site by an intelligent lunatic is wonderful. It explains why democracy, human rights, liberalism, libertarianism, and the free market are totalitarian. To him at least.