US ISP Terminates Iranian News Website

Just business by HairyCanary · 2005-01-25 02:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Catbeller · 2005-01-25 04:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by lgw · 2005-01-25 04:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Just business by That's+Unpossible! · 2005-01-25 05:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Re:Just business by gowen · 2005-01-25 05:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Re:Just business by Rei · 2005-01-25 05:59 · Score: 4, Informative

99% of the active terrorists in the world espouse [a bastardized version of] Islam?

Hmm, I better inform the 3rd October Organization (ASALA), the 17 November Revolutionary Organization, the Albanian National Arma, the Alex Boncayao Brigade, the Alliance of Eritrean National Force, the Algeti Wolves, the Alliance pour la resistance democratique (ARD) (Mayi-Mayi), the National Army for the Liberation of Uganda (NALU), AMAL, Japanese Red Army (JRA) Anti-Imperialist International Brigade (AIIB), the Anti-Imperialist Territorial Nuclei (NTA), the Arewa People's Congress, Fuerzas Armadas Liberacion Nacional Puertoriquena (FALN) (the "Armed Forces of Puerto Rican National Liberation", aka Popular Boricua Army, Ejercito Popular Boricua, Macheteros), the Armed Nuclei for Proletarian Autonomy, Armed Revolutionary Nuclei (ARN) (Ordine Nuovo), and Aum Shinrikyo (the folks responsible for the Tokyo Sarin gas attack, of which a few are still at large). And those are just the "A"'s and earlier. By the way, all of our local terroristic militias like McVeigh's gang, and the appallingly ignored May 2003 plot by white supremacists in Texas (led by Krar) who had enough weaponry and cyanide to take out an arms depot or small city, are not included in the list.

--
People said I was dumb, but I proved them.

Servers are private property. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-25 02:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

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. by rdc_uk · 2005-01-25 03:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

Way to miss the point; I was replying to the parent comment about "y'all have no right to expect a contract to be honoured".

My caveats were there specifically to assuage pedants from making assinine "but maybe they had KP on their student news site" comments ... like yours.
Re:Servers are private property. by Chibi · 2005-01-25 04:52 · Score: 3, Funny

"y'all have no right to expect a contract to be honoured"

I suddenly have an image of the US South under British rule... :)

"Bloody hell, Cleetus, I think this boy is biting his thumb at me!"

--
If all you have are silver bullets, everything looks like a werewolf.

Lets face it by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-25 02:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-25 03:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by log0n · 2005-01-25 03:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

First they put away the dealers,
keep our kids safe and off the street.
Then they put away the prostitutes,
keep married men cloistered at home.

Then they shooed away the bums,
then they beat and bashed the queers,
turned away asylum-seekers,
fed us suspicions and fears.

We didn't raise our voice,
we didn't make a fuss.
It's funny there was no one left to notice
when they came for us.

Looks like witches are in season,
you better fly your flag and be aware
of anyone who might fit the description,
diversity is now our biggest fear.

Now with our conversations tapped
and our differences exposed,
how ya supposed to love your neighbor
with our minds and curtains closed?

We used to worry bout big brother,
now we got a big father and an even bigot mother.

And still you believe
this aristocracy gives a fuck about you.
They put the mock in demockracy
and you swallowed every hook.

The sad truth is you would rather
follow the school into the net
cuz swimming alone at sea
is not the kind of freedom you actually want.

So go back to your crib and suck on a tit
go bask in the warmth of your diaper.
Youre sitting in shit and piss
while sucking a huge pacifier,
a country of adult infants.
A legion of mental midgets
all regaining their unconsciousness

-- Fat Mike

Censorship by QMO · 2005-01-25 02:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Putting on the Tin-Foil Hat for a second ... by bfree · 2005-01-25 02:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

Re:Putting on the Tin-Foil Hat for a second ... by Loacher · 2005-01-25 03:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

"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 ... by saintp · 2005-01-25 03:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Another one bites the dust

Not a First Amendment Issue by goldspider · 2005-01-25 02:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Or perhaps... by rhsanborn · 2005-01-25 02:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

USEFUL Link by saintp · 2005-01-25 02:59 · Score: 4, Informative

Link to actual story from the BBC

--
Another one bites the dust

ISNA has well-known links to terror by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-25 03:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by sanctimonius+hypocrt · 2005-01-25 03:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by kbahey · 2005-01-25 03:27 · Score: 3, Informative

You say you are Arab American. This web site is in Persian, as you can see from Archive.org . So how come you know all this about them?
You seem to be confusing ISNA (Iranian Students News Agency, the subject of this Slashdot article) with ISNA (Islamic Society of North America)?
The latter ISNA is a well reputed Muslim organization in America and not related to promoting terrorism nor fake charities.
An Arab American would most likely spelled it as Quran and not Koran too.
You being an Anonymous Coward tells me that are trolling, and not just confused.

--
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
Re:ISNA has well-known links to terror by Jagasian · 2005-01-25 03:50 · Score: 3, Informative

I think you mean "Farsi" instead of "Persian", and yes Farsi is not the same language as Arabic. Knowing one does not help you understand the other.
Re:ISNA has well-known links to terror by laird · 2005-01-25 04:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

Whether you support or oppose the ISNA site, ISP's aren't responsible for the content of the sites that they host, and should (IMO) make their decisions based on business issues. For example, hosting spammers is bad because those people abuse the internet, violating the ISP's Acceptable Use Policy (and aside from the moral issues, attracting counter-attacks that are a PITA for an ISP to deal with). The idea that an ISP would terminate a site's hosting due to the site's content (assuming it's not illegal to host the site) is pretty creepy.

That being said, the ISP can accept or reject customers for any reasons that it wants, so long as it's not violating its contracts and isn't discriminating illegally (sex, race, religion, etc.). (This is all assuming US law -- I have no idea what Iranian law requires of ISP's, etc.) And, on the flip side, ISNA should be able to freely move their site to another ISP, transfer DNS, have adequate notice from the ISP before termination to manage a transfer, etc. That should all have been covered by their contract.

What I can't see is why this is a big deal. If one ISP doesn't want to host ISNA, they can terminate them but should be required by their contract to give them adequate notice, and access to the servers, to move to another ISP. If the ISP didn't give them that, ISNA should sue them. If ISNA had adequate notice and didn't move their site, they're being lame.

--
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Re:ISNA has well-known links to terror by Jagasian · 2005-01-25 05:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

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. by Kenrod · 2005-01-25 03:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

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!

Fox! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-25 03:06 · Score: 5, Funny

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

Shut down Fox!

Or maybe... by GweeDo · 2005-01-25 03:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

cut and HUNG OUT TO BE dried.. by museumpeace · 2005-01-25 03:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

"...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.

+5, Funny by pb · 2005-01-25 03:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.

Re:+5, Funny by ShamusYoung · 2005-01-25 03:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
--This sig is in beta. Please let us know abut any errors you find.
Re:+5, Funny by Spark00 · 2005-01-25 04:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by Spark00 · 2005-01-25 04:46 · Score: 3, Informative

Hey bub, I ain't the one who brought up Bush & the US. You did. I'm not saying you can't open up a can of whup-ass on some dictator and free people. I took issue with the idea of 'enforcing' freedom. As in a long term kind of thing. you free a people and then let them be free.
But since you do bring up Bush and the US let's remember that there are lots of examples of very un-free places in the world that are left well enough alone by the US because of any number of reasons - not the least of which is that the regime in power are friends of the US government. And just for FULL disclosure here let me say that I am NOT any US. I love the US, it's quite frankly an amazing, beautiful, wonderful place filled with many fantastic people. I hate to trot out the old 'some of my best friends are..." cliché but well it's true. I AM absolutely, positively, categorically ANTI-BUSH. I think that he and his cronies have done more damage to the country than we have even begun to realise. When we're all dust and our great-great-grandkids are paying off debts that this 'fiscal conservative' ran up history will judge him.
But back to my original point. you can't 'enforce' freedom. you protect it, nurture it, and sometimes, yes, impose it by removing corrupt regimes. But you can't force a people to behave a certain way forever, because when you try, you're enforcing your view of how freedom should be enjoyed, and you are at that point as corrupt as the regime you replaced.
The reason that France and Germany are now free, is because the Allies kicked a little Nazi ass, provided the seeds of democracy and the money to set it up, and then got the hell out.
Re:+5, Funny by jafac · 2005-01-25 05:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Re:+5, Funny by dajak · 2005-01-25 05:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by Red+Moose · 2005-01-25 06:21 · Score: 4, Funny

even well-informed Westerners would have a difficult time getting a pulse reading, even with their finger on the vein.
I'm being an asshole pointing this out, but you get pulses from the arteries, not veins.

--
Acting stupid isn't much fun when there's someone around who knows better
Re:+5, Funny by cayenne8 · 2005-01-25 06:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

' 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....

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Interesting. by pb · 2005-01-25 03:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Misconceptions by TooMuchEspressoGuy · 2005-01-25 03:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

In actuality, Iran isn't quite as oppressive as the Bushies would have us believe. What they don't tell you is that the Iranian government consists of a semi- (or "illiberal") democracy, with a reformer as its current head, and that Iran probably has the most potential of any Mideast country to evolve genuine democratic institutions over time (aside from Turkey, obviously, which has already pretty much democratized.) The Iranian people have an extensive (for a Mideast country) freedom of expression, voting rights, and the opportunity to lay out more rights given time to work things out on their own.

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.

Watch out, trick question by doublem · 2005-01-25 03:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Freedom Of Expression Only OK For Some? by pcardno · 2005-01-25 03:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Proper Sanctioning? by surefooted1 · 2005-01-25 03:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?

Actual Censorship in Iran by TheSync · 2005-01-25 03:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Re:Please tell me where in the constitution you ha by TooMuchEspressoGuy · 2005-01-25 03:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

You seem to be working off of the assumption that a government must expressly dictate what rights are, when the opposite is true. A "right" is essentially anything that the government does not make a law against. This statement only goes for personal rights, though; the State, being an artificial and bureaucratic institution, must explicitly set out what rights it has (in other words, which laws it can enforce.)

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.

Ominous implications by Baldrson · 2005-01-25 03:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

An ISP censors at its own peril. Common carrier status provides freedom from liability for content carried. Common carrier status is abrogated by censoring content carried. The Planet is risking undermining its own legal status while at the same time undermining, via court precedent, the common carrier status of all ISPs due to the immature nature of the law governing this new regime of media.

As I wrote 23 years ago:

The question at hand is this: How do we mold the early videotex environment so that noise is suppressed without limiting the free flow of information between customers?
The first obstacle is, of course, legal. As the knights of U.S. feudalism, corporate lawyers have a penchant for finding ways of stomping out innovation and diversity in any way possible. In the case of videotex, the attempt is to keep feudal control of information by making videotex system ownership imply liability for information transmitted over it. For example, if a libelous communication takes place, corporate lawyers for the plaintiff will bring suit against the carrier rather than the individual responsible for the communication. The rationalizations for this clearly unreasonable and contrived position are quite numerous. Without a common carrier status, the carrier will be treading on virgin ground legally and thus be unprotected by precedent. Indeed, the stakes are high enough that the competitor could easily afford to fabricate an event ideal for the purposes of such a suit. This means the first legal precedent could be in favor of holding the carrier responsible for the communications transmitted over its network, thus forcing (or giving an excuse for) the carrier to inspect, edit and censor all communications except, perhaps, simple person-to-person or "electronic mail". This, in turn, would put editorial control right back in the hands of the feudalists. Potential carriers' own lawyers are already hard at work worrying everyone about such a suit. They would like to win the battle against diversity before it begins. This is unlikely because videotex is still driven by technology and therefore by pioneers.

The grace period may be about over.

--
Seastead this.

lets not forget ... by runnin247 · 2005-01-25 03:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

... 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.

Get your site out of the US by J'raxis · 2005-01-25 04:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

Just business by 1u3hr · 2005-01-25 04:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

It's illegal by grahamsz · 2005-01-25 04:11 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

Re:On the side of The Planet by the_mad_poster · 2005-01-25 04:35 · Score: 3, Funny

Sir, this is Slashdot, the Usenet of the web. Your sensibility and level-headed approach to a murky situation is not appreciated here.

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!

Re:Freedom is slavery by dajak · 2005-01-25 08:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

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?

There is no difference. You are free, because you are allowed to do everything you want. All major political ideologies want to free people, but they differ in their beliefs on what most people want, and whether people know what they want (revealed preference vs. motivating preference).

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.

I believe most people in Iraq wanted something better than Saddam.

There is another, more fundamental, issue: 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. You cannot oppress a majority. So a people that is sufficiently autonomous (from outside interference) gets the government it deserves.

In reality a weak country cannot remove its elite if that elite is supported with the money and technology of a strong country. In much of the world 'government' is a battleground (or beauty contest) for western money and technology.

The Soviet Union collapsed because the people stopped supporting it. In a small country this does not happen as long as the elite has weapons the people cannot produce for themselves.

The 'invisible hand of democracy' will only work if countries respect the sovereignty of other countries.

Invaders sometimes leave a stable democracy behind, but only because they didn't impose it and left and the people happened to be ready. Germany and Japan after WWII are bad examples for imposing a democracy. There the people did it themselves. Germany and Austria after WWI ARE examples, and they went terribly wrong.

What happens if the people vote to have Saddam installed back in power?

Then Iraq would prove Kuyper's point. I wouldn't dare to speculate what happens in the US, but it probably has a happy ending because the American people are autonomous by virtue of their number and wealth.

Slashdot Mirror

US ISP Terminates Iranian News Website

51 of 770 comments (clear)