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

[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

[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.

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.

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)

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.

Or perhaps...

[rhsanborn]

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

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

[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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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!!!

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?

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.

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.