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

[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

[Rei]

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.

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)

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.

USEFUL Link

[saintp]

Link to actual story from the BBC

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.

Fox!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Shut down Fox!

Or maybe...

[GweeDo]

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.

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

[Red Moose]

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.

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).

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.

Actual Censorship in Iran

[TheSync]

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.

Ominous implications

[Baldrson]

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.

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.