Slashdot Mirror
Google Cancels Domain Registration For Neo-Nazi Website Daily Stormer (businessinsider.com)
Google has cancelled the domain registration for The Daily Stormer, the company confirmed to news outlet BusinessInsider. After GoDaddy kicked the neo-Nazi website off its service on Monday, a "whois" search for the domain had noted that the website had moved its domain registrar to Google. In a statement, Google said, "We are cancelling Daily Stormer's registration with Google Domains for violating our terms of service." Last week, The Daily Stormer posted an offensive article about Heather Heyer, a 32-year-old legal assistant, who was killed by a car that 20-year-old James Alex Fields Jr. drove into a group of protestors at the Unite the Right white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia on Saturday.
A message purportedly posted by hackers appeared on the Daily Stormer a few hours ago, The Guardian reported. Anonymous hacker group has taken credit for "hacking" the website, according to the message posted on the website, which adds that the editing rights of the website are now in the hands of Anonymous. It remains unclear, however, whether the site has actually been hacked.
A message purportedly posted by hackers appeared on the Daily Stormer a few hours ago, The Guardian reported. Anonymous hacker group has taken credit for "hacking" the website, according to the message posted on the website, which adds that the editing rights of the website are now in the hands of Anonymous. It remains unclear, however, whether the site has actually been hacked.
Support terrorism - expect nobody to help you.
See subject.
It shoudn't be questioned that neo nazi speech is bad, they're the enemy.
It shoudn't be questioned that capitalist speech is bad, they're the enemy.
It shoudn't be questioned that comunis speech is bad, they're the enemy.
We're entering dangerous ground...
Who the fuck registers domains with Google? Namecheap is the way to go.
See subject.
(Slashdot can't handle a subject of just ".ru". Sad.)
They want a war on a coward's terms. Give them a war on AMERICA's TERMS.
END THE NAZI FAGGOT SCOURGE.
Clearly they are now responsible for content hosted on domains they register, since they've exhibited the ability and willingness to filter based on certain standards. Have fun with that, Google.
Maybe we're already closer than we thought.
The alt-right was all about getting the Islamist off the internet. Well the road to censorship is a one way downhill one
The internet has always been an open discussion forum of all ideas.
I dislike the idea of posting hate speech online just as much as the next, and in principle I agree with what GoDaddy and Google did here, however if you can cancel someone's domain over unapproved speech, what protections do others have with holding their domains when they speak ill of the government of otherwise? Restricting speech is a slippery slope, if you remove it for one nutjob (like GoDaddy and Google did here), however awful it might be, you're opening the door for the government to shut down other domains that are critical of them.
Is Hate Speech very specifically called out as an exception to freedom of speech? I'm curious what their rationale is here, and how easily others can link this case to shutting down other people's view points on the internet as well.
Would love to hear how this is or is not a slippery slope towards censorship. Thanks.
moox. for a new generation.
fuck 'em
Politically driven DNS denial of service is going to lead to alternate DNS roots.
So much for net neutrality. This is more like dictatorship. Just because you don't agree with someone is not a reason to silence them.
Looks like they're going to have to shopping for a registrar who's despicable enough to want their business now.
Nobody is silencing them. They can still broadcast on the web, even without a domain name. They just need a stable IP/IPv6 address. DNS is a convenience, not a necessity.
So what happens when all the major sites start clamping down on offensive speech? Does it just die off, or will it condense to the few places that still allow people to say whatever they want? Can we expect slashdot to become a hive of scum and villainy in the future because it gets left as one of the few places that still allows anonymous posting without having to worry about your comments being deleted.
You could always register your domain with DreamHost. But I doubt extremist content would pass their TOS.
Perhaps it's time for the USPS to implement a domain registration service that will insure viewpoint neutral service and foster open communication? We need a true public forum available to all and we seem to be losing this.
In the old days, one could go to the town square, get on their soap box, and speak their mind and be jeered, cheered, or both or even just ignored by those passing by.
Unfortunately, now access to the "town square" requires finding a domain registrar who won't impose their political views on their patrons -- much as if a gas station refused to sell gasoline to someone because the patron was going to use the gasoline to drive to a protest for an unpopular presidential candidate.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Do we need this twice?
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.
It is their servers, they can choose what to have on it and what to delete. Because of a slew of laws that may or may not make the information holder liable for for the content. It is safer to take off what would be considered dangerous.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Yes, actually, it is. Nazis deserved to be silenced, and more.
Toleration is not a moral precept. It's a peace treaty. it's an agreement to live and let live...but when you are part of a group that explicitly calls for the destruction of other human beings because of their race, you are breaking that peace treaty, and should be dealt with force, if necessary. Fuck this guy.
https://extranewsfeed.com/tole...
The only thing funnier than the idiotic comments being circulated by the alt-right ideologies is how vacuous the posters are. Total fail masters.
I love how you were modded up and the GP was modded down. Classic millenial pot smoking safe space baby talk. Even my foolish enemies should be allowed to express themselves.
Does it not make sense to you people that these who express themselves in this manner are EXPOSING themselves for what they are which is a GOOD THING? I wonder some days if Mrs. Mash hands out modpoints to people who agree with her like old Halloween candy to the first grade class.
--Black Lifes Matter
They are no silencing them. They are trying to make it more difficult for them to communicate based solely on disapproving of their viewpoint. Google can do that if they want, but they have no credibility when making the argument that they're for an open Internet.
nearlyfreespeech.net only has the following restrictions:
You may not upload, publish, or otherwise use the Services to make available any Content that:
violates the laws of the United States of America; or
you are contractually prohibited from distributing; or
is tortious under the laws of the United States of America; or
your distribution of which infringes upon the intellectual property rights of others; or
you otherwise do not have the legal right to distribute.
If you have a controversial website, they seem to be the hosts to go to. I have used them for years for non-controversial, low traffic sites, just because I like that they are pro-free speech. Even though I despise neo-Nazi idiots, I think having their views out there is better than not.
It's no different than trying to shutdown ISIS online networks
Physically standing in the town square also left you open to beatings. I am fully in favor of bringing Storm Front to the nearest square...
This is about open discussion. These people are promoting violence. They are praising Alex for killing peaceful protester. They have articles
On their site claiming she's a whore and a scourge on society because she isn't married with kids. They are saying she deserved to die.
That isn't discourse.
I think it is high time for there to be a public domain name registrar that does not restrict people's rights to free speech. I dislike white supremecists, neo nazis, and their brethren but they have a right to speak their minds. I am Jewish and it might sound crazy that I am defending them but America should not be about free speech as long it is not inconvenient or offensive. If racists want to go around hooting and hollering like idiots, then it is their constitutional right to do so. Besides, by blocking and censoring these groups, they only become martyrs for their own cause, emboldened, and angered. Blocking their speech just gave them a huge publicity boost. Plus, these guys are like whack-a-mole. Block one and another pops up.
Which opens a fun can of worms. Google now indirectly supports every offensive site they're currently hosting.
Censorship doesn't only mean that some information is made completely inaccessible. Even just obstructing access to information, to make it more difficult to get at that information, is an act of censorship.
Perhaps that means putting blank ink over written text, like in the case of a document.
Perhaps that means distorting the pixels, like in the case of an image or video recording.
Perhaps that means distorting the sound waves, like in the case of an audio recording.
Perhaps that means preventing its domain name from being registered or resolving, like in the case of a website.
Perhaps that means hiding a comment from the default view, like in the case of discussion on a website like Slashdot or Reddit.
Making content more difficult to access is censorship.
So much for net neutrality. This is more like dictatorship. Just because you don't agree with someone is not a reason to silence them.
Not sure you understand what net neutrality means. It would mean that if said neo-nazi's paid a premium, their message would be more accessible than those with more sensible messages, but with shallow pockets.
In this sense, "neutrality" has nothing to do with popular opinion, and more to do with rich people/companies being able to pay to ensure startups or individuals would have no chance at competing, or making an opposing message visible to the masses by comparison.
Web hosts and registrars are now the de facto controllers of mass publication. They have greater ability to censor unwanted speech than any government. It's scary how this has become common place, and all that happens in response is an over-intellectualised debate between "it's censorship" and "it's not censorship because it's not government" and "it's their house so it's their rules".
We've arrived in an era when large companies can censor unwanted voices, and all that happens is it becomes a talking point for a day or two and then is forgotten about.
I wish we could hear from people who have actually gone to war to defend our right to free speech. I wonder how supportive they are of Google and GoDaddy deciding who's allowed to talk?
Your right to free speech effectively ends when you start killing people. Sorry, fuck right off if you want to protect a bunch of actual Nazis. We're America. We saved the world by killing Nazis, not be encouraging them to spread their propaganda and letting them murder because muh fweedoms.
This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.
I do hear folks on here frequently asking for ISPs to be granted common carrier status. If that were to happen, would Google/GoDaddy still be allowed to do this?
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
Daily stormer are terrible human beings, I completely disagree with them in the strongest terms but isn't there some protection for this? If registrars can ban users for this what political issue or group is next?
The Pstn, water and electric providers can't cut service to their offices because of politics, shouldn't registrars be the same?
The Leftist idiots blocking these people are creating a bigger problem that will blossom into open warfare.
Let them rant, in other words.
Dictatorship? Because there aren't 10,000 other companies that will register your website domain for you?
Should we allow ISIS to publish their hatred and call to violence as well, in the name of net neutrality or can we agree that that "free speech" has limits?
The practice of restricting free speech, whether done as a private corporation or public government is a really slippery slope. Sometimes the act of censorship creates martyrs out of those being censored. It would be better if we do not look to the public domain for censorship. Let's practice some self-censorship. I chose not to visit websites that spew hate and revisionist history as I do not like them. If you don't like them either, then you should make that very same choice. However simply because material like this is offensive to you, does not mean it should be restricted or blocked for others. One of the benefits of allowing sites such as these to hem and holler about is that it remains out in the open and easily monitored. When you force groups to go underground, they're not as easily watched and monitored. It is easy to use these websites as teaching and research tools of how hate develops and how demographics can affect it.
Looks like CloudFlare doesn't care I guess... user@system:~$ dig dailystormer.com ns +short kirk.ns.cloudflare.com. jean.ns.cloudflare.com.
And those doing the beatings would be subject to prosecution and imprisonment in addition to civil suits and, possibly, death by the person being beaten defending themselves successfully and legally.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
In general terms, Google isn't an ISP (yes, I know they own some fiber, so to some extent that makes them ISP). They are a content provider. Net neutrality refers to the provisioning of priority for packets, and not permitting ISPs to prioritize certain traffic based on type and point of origin. It has nothing to do with content providers and hosting companies having policies that deem certain kinds of content as being inappropriate.
By your logic, if I have a web board, and I remove posts that violate the TOS my users agreed to upon signing up, somehow I'm violating net neutrality.
At least know the terms you're using. This isn't a net neutrality issue at all.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I hate to quote Game of Thrones, but...
"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say." (Meme related)
This seems to be related to the Streisand Effect. And /pol/ has memes about how nearly everyone there now first went there to see for themselves what was so terrible that everyone condemned it.
My guess is that Google and GoDaddy have just delivered publicity and an endorsement the likes of which those guys couldn't in a hundred years have been able to purchase.
See that "Preview" button?
ISIS, Nazis and similar groups don't deserve any tolerance because they don't give one. These groups would use liberal ideas only to spread their hatred or terrorism.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Open does not mean without limits.
Do you agree that Google should have limits? Or do you think they should provide domain services for ISIS recruitment websites including those that promote violence against others?
Canada is very similar to the USA, but it has hate speech laws, and draws the line legally in speech. Even though there is a line, it is very rare that it comes up or needs to be enforced. You'd learn a lot by looking into how Canada does its hate speech laws and its history, but keep in mind in Commonwealth countries the legal term is 'freedom of expression' not 'freedom of speech'.
In all, things are very similar here. There are still hate groups and white supremacy rallies, but it is much easier to prosecute the ringleaders when people incite hatred and violence in an obvious way. Things are pretty stable, and there is no slippery slope, just a less absolute free reign on free speech when it comes to extreme cases.
On the other hand, it seems from here that the US is much more strict on socially policing free speech: you're much more likely to lose your job there than here for what you say or do in public and in your own time.
However, if the US did things like Canada, it wouldn't have such interesting politics and debates. We're just so reasonable and boring up here it is hard to get anyone to care about anything!
This whole idea makes no sense. The internet is not a town square, it is a million private clubs for all kinds of different groups of people. You think you would be able to freely post on the Daily Stormer to rebut their hate speech? Hell no. The internet is actually anti-open-communication because people just go to the communities that they already agree with. Your town square ideal is more dead now than it has ever been and the internet is not bringing it back.
I didn't ask about Net Neutrality. I specifically asked about Common Carrier. Maybe I should have posted in a different thread.
I can't remember how it worked for AT&T back in the day, but could they deny phone service to someone based off of the content being delivered across said phone? I know it's a little different for them being granted monopoly status for a long time.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
As far as I understand, yes. Common carrier status applies to information that crosses the ISP's network, not information that originates from the ISP. So they'd still be able to be selective about what they host themselves; they just wouldn't be able to censor information from an outside source that enters their network.
I just googled for "free speech quotes" and found this one-
“Censorship is to art as lynching is to justice.”
Henry Louis Gates Jr.
The problem I see is that somewhere along the line, the relationship between Free Speech and The Internet either got muddled, or was prevented from becoming unmuddled. I suspect Google has their rea$ons for the judgements they make, and actions they have the power to take regarding Speech on The Internet. That is a problem. When it comes to which speech can ethically be forcibly removed from The Internet, my own belief is that such judgements should soley come from government, not quasi-monopolists. Of course that's not where society is at the moment. I think it's very unfortunate and may be resulting in a far lower quality of life for humanity than we might otherwise enjoy. Obviously governments are plenty bad, but when it comes to the choice between being policed by an at least partially democratic government versus a private for-profit corporation, I'll take the government as my overlord any day of the week.
There is no such thing as free speech on the Internet. Fuck the Internet
I went on the site, it seems they have control again(url:httpswwwdailystormercomanglin-here-ive-retaken-control-of-the-site-the-daily-stormer-never-dies)... The article is still there too(https://www.dailystormer.com/heather-heyer-woman-killed-in-road-rage-incident-was-a-fat-childless-32-year-old-slut/)... You can't block these people man... that just just makes it harder to know what they are up too :/ Crazy Google. Maybe that is what Google want's? WTF are they thinking?
Classic (or perhaps deliberate) misunderstanding of our right to free speech. Yes, we must stand up for the rights of others we vehemently disagree with to say what they're gonna say. But no, nobody owes them a platform or a pedestal. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
You need to get up to date on reality. The last people who knew real Nazis are almost all dead now. It's just a word now. So is Hitler.
Step 1 - register the domain with a "Personalized" TLD ... is .hate available?
Step 2 - find a co-location company that will host the servers without a view of the content (try companies that co-locate porn servers)
Step 3 - set up web servers to host the content
Step 4 - upload the site content
Step 5 - set up DNS servers (2 required by RFQ) to point to new site
Step 6 - Profit!
Step 7 - be pwned and defaced within an hour of going on line
Step 8 - watch as servers go up in smoke from DDOS attacks
Step 9 rinse and repeat
Despicable speech is just as protected as popular speech. These idiots are potentially subject to civil defamation damages if they are claiming the victim is a whore (and appear to mean it literally, not figuratively) and some injured party can prove she was NOT a whore and that these nut jobs knew that (or, perhaps, reasonably should have known that(?)).
In the town square, there is no restriction that speech must be "discourse" as some AC defines it on /. in order for it to be protected speech. There can only be viewpoint neutral rules (such as no loudspeakers after 10PM or before 8AM or decibel limits or requirement for organizers providing sanitation facilities). Even some viewpoint neutral rules such as "no fires" have been found by some courts NOT to justify exclusion of expressive speech involving fire (such as burning an American flag).
Remember, the First Amendment is needed to protect unpopular speech -- rarely is popular speech suppressed.
Google and GoDaddy are certainly within their legal rights to refuse service to almost anyone (except because they are a member of a protected class). They could, for example (within their TOS), have shut down any websites promoting Bernie Sanders because their CEO preferred Hillary Clinton.
However, the effective migration of the function of the public town square to a privately controlled space controlled by the likes of GoDaddy and Google is alarming. Hence, my suggestion that the USPS could institute an alternative forum (at least in part) that IS protected by the First Amendment because the USPS is controlled by Congress and is effectively an arm of the US Government.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Cool lesson on semantics.
The difference is that going to the town square required the person spewing hate speech to go out in public and face public ridicule. Anyone can set up countless web sites filled with entire alternate realities to reinforce their viewpoints, completely devoid of facts. And they can do it without ever having to look another human being in the eye. One nutjob in the town square looks like just one nutjob and is easy to ignore. One nutjob online can look like a massive movement that can entice vulnerable individuals who are ripe for radical indoctrination.
And yes, I would prefer it if the gas station would refuse to sell gasoline to guys in white hoods with a giant cross and lots of glass bottles and oily rags in the back of their pickup truck, assuming that it isn't clear that it's the pope making a recycling run. This goes way beyond unpopular political views, we're talking about people who use speech to incite violence against others. They're still free to go out into the town square, but I'm not obligated to give them a soap box and Google isn't obligated to give them a megaphone.
Except that the content isn't any more difficult to access. An IP address is no more difficult to type into a browser's address bar than a DNS name, nor is a link to an IP address any harder to click on. And this is assuming that this site won't be able to find a DNS address anywhere at all, which is also quite a stretch. If nothing else, I'm sure the .ru registrar would be happy to hook them up.
There are also many sites thaf thrive without any DNS names at all, in the deep web, for example. There simply is no case for censorship here. This is just a business exercising its right to free association by choosing not to associate with monsters.
Maybe, but for those rare free speech absolutists who really are arguing Nazis should have a neutral DNS registrar available on free speech grounds (as opposed to the alt-right nuts we see here), there are, actually, rather a lot of DNS registrars, even if you remove the duplicates. The idea Stormfront cannot get someone to register their website is ludicrous. And frankly, if an organization is so terrible that they can't get one of the literally thousands of registrars to talk to them...
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Open does not mean without limits.
Do you agree that Google should have limits? Or do you think they should provide domain services for ISIS recruitment websites including those that promote violence against others?
Then "open" doesn't mean "open", does it?
With the internet and the TLDs structured as they are, with government involvement in assigning TLDs to nations, giving control to ICANN, propping up telecoms, etc., and the law of the land being free-speech, I'd say certain registrars (.us, and probably .com) should not be able to revoke registration (or increase pricing to target specific domains) if something is not illegal.
If every .com registrar refuses to handle their domain, that effectively means their domain is seized.
What if the post office refused to carry your mail because you mailed out a communist manifesto?
What if AT&T refused to give you a land line because you called a politician and told them to ban weasels from your county?
What if the power company cut service to your home because you operate a HAM radio and broadcast your own smooth jazz renditions of pop songs?
This is a diversion. They did the same thing with the rebel flag issue and a week later, gay marriage was passed federally. Except now, we have a republican president, Russian conspiracies, FCC nonsense, AI scares, Wiki Leaks, NASA funding issues, Dakota pipeline, etc., and all that we have gotten as news in the past week is neo-nazi, abortion, and sexist/agist fluff. When are protestors going to learn that they're their enemies' tools? That shit only works in the movies and most civil rights change occurred during a time when a determined person was feared rather than empathized. No one with intelligence and power to to truly change or ignore at their leaser is concerned with a generation that stumbles around a street, staring at a smart phone and posting to Facebook and Snap Chat every ten minutes just so their dumbasses can get extra credit for an ethics class.
I don't believe Google is a common carrier... I believe that is more targeted at the ISPs, not DNS registrars, hosting sites, etc.
One person being intolerant of another intolerant person == two intolerant persons.
Then there's the trend in our society to find as many new ways to be offended as possible and you end up compounding the problem.
My guess is that since as society begins treating the special groups we're trying to protect/defend as just normal people, those who's identity relies on fighting to protect those differences have to fight harder and harder to remain relevant. This ironically is a result of their success. Not being a racist/sexist doesn't make you special anymore*, it just means you're like pretty much everyone else. That's a *good* thing, please accept it and stop trying to create division among people just to selfishly keep your sense of purpose.
* There is still plenty of sexism and racism. My point is that it's now generally accepted that these things are bad. The 'convince people that it is bad' fight is won already, the key now is just to lead by example. People who are still racist/sexist nowadays are so by choice. Like flat-earthers, it's not for lack of information or people telling them they're wrong. You're not going to 'fix' them, just try your best not to be as stupid.
Mind the frickin' laser...
Web hosts and registrars are now the de facto controllers of mass publication. They have greater ability to censor unwanted speech than any government. It's scary how this has become common place, and all that happens in response is an over-intellectualised debate between "it's censorship" and "it's not censorship because it's not government" and "it's their house so it's their rules".
We've arrived in an era when large companies can censor unwanted voices, and all that happens is it becomes a talking point for a day or two and then is forgotten about.
I wish we could hear from people who have actually gone to war to defend our right to free speech. I wonder how supportive they are of Google and GoDaddy deciding who's allowed to talk?
Hashtag Home Servers Matter and the FCC knows it, and chooses to further the establishment (Google and GoDaddy being big players in it) status quo. And then there was that Hillary/Comey kerfluffle and Trump. Things that make you go HMMMM.....
"Toleration is not a moral precept."
In 1900, the idea that women were equal to men and deserved equal rights was unpopular. It took years of protests to persuade others to change the laws.
In 1940, the idea that Blacks were equal to whites and deserved equal rights was unpopular. It took years of protests to persuade others to change the laws.
in 1980, the idea that gays were equal to straits and deserved equal rights was unpopular. It took years of protests to persuade others to change the laws.
By saying that unpopular views should not be tolerated, you saying that you approve of beating those women, blacks, and gays to make sure they are silenced, and never able to persuade people that they deserve equal rights.
If you support beating women, blacks, and gays then YOU are just as much scum as the Nazis.
If you don't support suppressing those unpopular opinions, but support suppressing others - well, your views on governance match those of the Nazis and would find a home in Saudi Arabia. You're a petty tyrant, and you should be grateful that others tolerate you... or you'd quickly find yourself beaten and oppressed.
Should we allow ISIS to publish their hatred and call to violence as well
Yes.
can we agree that that "free speech" has limits?
No. The moment you limit any speech, you jeopardize all speech.
No, Google just hosts their recruitment videos on Youtube. They might now have their 'redirect to antiterror' trick going, but up until August, Google's moral highground was more of a chasm.
Your right to speak does not entail my support or even my facilitation of said right. I am under no obligation to support you or provide any means for you to broadcast your speech.
We aren't even talking about you not being able to use the internet to broadcast your speech, all this is is a translation service between IP and DNS that is rejecting its assistance in the Nazi-Group's attempt to voice their opinion.
Not to mention that the only entity that has to honor freedom of speech is the government. I can, at any time I like, disallow you to speak AT ALL on my property. And that includes my "virtual property".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I don't agree with the opinion or agenda of neo-nazis, but unlike Google I defend their right to have and express one.
What Google is continuing to do is blatant radical left-wing peecee censorship/silencing of any alternative opinions.
It seems highly ironic to me that Google take the stance of being strongly against naziism yet take a notably similar approach to censoring freedom of speech.
Yes. In this area it does. And it is in this area that Google is showing itself to be a dangerous opponent to individual freedom and expression.
They should have ZERO input in this regard; same as GoDaddy.
Just as Bic (the pen company) should have no say in what words are written by its pens nor Dell for the words written by one of their laptops neither should Google or any other company have a say in what people write and place on their websites. (That includes fascists, BLM, ISIS and any other group one has issues with.)
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Yes, actually, it is. Nazis deserved to be silenced, and more.
Toleration is not a moral precept. It's a peace treaty. it's an agreement to live and let live...but when you are part of a group that explicitly calls for the destruction of other human beings because of their race, you are breaking that peace treaty, and should be dealt with force, if necessary. Fuck this guy.
IF you think the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the Nazis right to say stuff that offends you, you are no better than they are.
Let's all be CLEAR that it is the violence that we all should oppose, the speech should remain free, regardless how much we disagree or how angry it makes us.
...all you want, but don't pretend you understand what Free Speech is about.
It's the most odious, most repellent, most hateful speech that we MUST protect. It doesn't mean that we listen politely, it doesn't mean that we must give it a fair listen at all.
But to shut it down completely? You're going to a dangerous, dangerous place.
-Styopa
Do you have a problem with ISIS recruitment websites, including those showing beheadings and calling for death to apostates?
The Daily Stormer is beyond offensive. It promotes violence and hatred. It's close to the proverbial yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Society does and should have limits to speech. We can't merely ban the actually blowing up of people with a bomb and stand by allowing people openly discussing and planning blowing up people with a bomb. Where that limit should be is debatable, that there should be limits isn't debatable.
SJW's, Antifa, Ultra-Liberal-Left-Wing-Nuts and similar groups don't deserve any tolerance because the don't give one. These groups would use liberal ideas only to spread their hatred or terrorism.
Now do you see why your argument falls apart?
Moron.
>Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
I think it means exactly that.
You're already doomed then. Free Speech—even in America—is and always has been a limited right.
(Exceptions to free speech in America.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And on top of that, being intolerant of intolerance is entirely consistent. It is necessary for a tolerant society to push back against that which would undermine it.
(Tolerance is not a moral absolute.) https://extranewsfeed.com/tole...
(Paradox of Tolerance)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So no, we don't have to let hateful organisations say whatever they want; the act of speaking such things is itself a kind of violence to our society. This doesn't mean that we should ban speech that makes us uncomfortable, or is unpopular. It DOES mean that speech that implicitly or explicitly advocates for genocide or violence is not worth protecting and is in fact speech that we should be actively attempting to limit by whatever means we can.
"Not every peace is better than the war it prevents." There's a certain peace to permitting all speech, even the worst kind of speech, but it's not worth it.
The ru regristar, based in Russia, the country who paid most dearly in the fight against the Nazis in WW2, is going to welcome them? You don't know much about history, it seems.
The 1st Amendment Right is not a peace treaty or any other type of agreement. I am definitely not a supporter of any part the White Nationalist platform, Nazi ideology but I am also not a supporter of Black Lives Matter, "Anonymous", the "Resistance", or any other group that has no effect on how conduct my day to day life. This is a rather harsh statement and here is why none of this matters to me. I am heterosexual, white, college educated, earn a salary high enough to disqualify me from using the many tax breaks available to those with a lower income but not high enough to take advantage of the tax breaks afforded the wealthy, I have really good healthcare insurance, veteran, widowed, no kids, apolitical (all politicians are honor less whores who lie for a living), and participate in no organized religion. Every single flash point and political argument in the country has no direct bearing on me because I am effectively invisible.
But I do abhor those self-righteous ass hats who think they control the definition of hate speech. The kind of people willing silence and violate the rights of those who disagree with them and justify their actions because after all "it's all for a good cause". The kind of people who know without a doubt they are 100% right and everyone else is wrong. If you cannot win your argument without bullying or silencing your opposition than maybe you should go work on refining your message into something capable of winning the argument. And you best hurry since the a new Armageddon seems to happen every 15 minutes and it can get hard to remember exactly which problem you may be protesting.
You could make a solid argument that the President of the US has been the victim of non-stop hate speech since before he was elected. Except in this case the hate speech is a combination of unending screeds the media feeds the populace and the subtle hate speech wielded by those who like to run things from behind the scenes. We have an entire segment of the population willing and ready to dismantle the US Presidential election system all because of someone who will be gone in 3 years. These same people are totally ignorant on what powers the Executive Branch actually wields and how the limits of those powers ensure a President cannot ruin or destroy the country. Only the Legislative Branch of the government is capable of ruining the country and they prove it everyday. However, the people working 24/7 to effectively stage a coup can also damage the country and have already done so. Only attacking the process when your candidate loses an election shows the true nature of those doing the complaining. When the current President leaves office any President who comes after him will face the same level of animosity, political handwringing, and back room intriguing that will disempower the Executive branch. And of course the ones actively working against the Executive Branch will use the same "it's all for a good cause" argument and once the President is gone they will stop their incessant complaining and stop loudly proclaiming their victimization status in the cruel and unfair world they have helped to create.However today those who were always comfortable in the shadows have been forced into the spotlight after the unthinkable occurred. Their paid for and fully anointed candidates lost. In US politics there is a simple question that is never asked and that is how are Federal level government candidates able to raise billions of dollars to pay their way into power? Every US citizen could donate the maximum amount of money allowed by law for just one candidate and that amount is still orders of magnitude lower than what the backdoor federal statue that allows unlimited donations. Why would wealthy people and companies donate the amount of money they do into buying every elected official they can get their hands on? Are they just stalwart citizens out to support the country? Or are they expecting a guaranteed ROI which only benefits themselves?
Hate speech spouted in the street is up front and an easy target for counter and in the end cause very little damage. For the thousands of protesters clogging up the street there are 350 million other non-racist US citizens just trying to get on with their lives with no time for daily demagoguery.
Someone more clever than I could probably improve upon this.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
In another day and age, you would have justified deportation to the gulag with the exact same words.
Indeed. Before, they could claim to be a common carrier. Now that they have asserted editorial control, they are more responsible for any web traffic they carry.
They are no silencing them.
variation on a theme.
Well then get on a plane and yell out "I have a bomb and am going to blow this plane up in 5 minutes!" and tell us how that freedom from consequences works out for you.
The speech should remain free so that we can identify and avoid the Nazis.
It's freedom from consequences from the government, not freedom from consequences from everyone
Comment removed based on user account deletion
> Nazis deserved to be silenced, and more
i.e. If I were in charge, the world would be perfect fallacy.
Intolerance dressed up in victimhood of some theoretical "peace treaty" you have imagined, is infant totalitarianism. Limited as it may be in your mind right now. Most telling is the "and more" addition, betraying your underlying derangement.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Should we allow ISIS to publish their hatred and call to violence as well, in the name of net neutrality or can we agree that that "free speech" has limits?
You already do by supporting islamisation of western society.
In the old days, one could go to the town square, get on their soap box, and speak their mind and be jeered, cheered, or both or even just ignored by those passing by.
And in the new days, you can still do this. The Internet is not a town square, nor is it necessary for wide distribution of ideas. You could: Write a book. Go on pubic access cable TV. Take out a newspaper ad. Wait, you say you'd have a hard time finding a publisher/cable tv station/newspaper willing to facilitate your hate speech? Why should the Internet be different?
Well, if we ever successfully depreciate DNS and make the internet truly peer to peer and symmetrical (up/down), the issue will be moot. Right now our ISPs are denying our right to host content ourselves, so yes while we remain dependent on others to do so, we need legislation to protect that right. We need to apply the 1st Amendment to their business. They have no right to discriminate against a paying customer over their content. Google and godaddy are "bakeries" that are violating our rights.
It is so sad to see the civil rights movement be completely usurped by the politically correctness of today's phony "liberals" who still cling to the democratic party.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Back into the darkest corners of the Internet where you belong.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Common Carrier would still only refer to an ISP. Not a hosting provider. Google is separate from Access & Energy (which the sub-company under Alphabet that runs what was formerly known as Google Fiber). Google is still many things, but the Fiber product was spun off. So, even should the FCC decide to categorize Access & Energy as a Common Carrier, it would have zero bearing on Google, Android, YouTube and many other services, including Google Domains.
Infographic of Alphabet's organization.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-alphabet-google-parent-company-infographic-x-gv-2016-1
can we agree that that "free speech" has limits?
No. The moment you limit any speech, you jeopardize all speech.
Wait... Then you're cool with someone doxxing you? You just said there can't be *any* limits on speech. So I guess swatting is cool too? Libel and slander are protected now?
This is why it's not wise to take an all-or-nothing stance on a controversial issue.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So are you calling for government regulation to protect Nazis from being discriminated against bu private businesses? Sounds like gay wedding cakes, if people are born Nazi. Or is being Nazi a choice, in which case it is not a protected class?
Maybe some hypocritical answer will be provided...
The thing about the internet is that there is no public ground. Everything on the internet is someone's property. You cannot even connect to the internet without someone putting ToS in front of you. If we acknowledge that the internet is an essential or at least very important medium for public discourse, then we need to acknowledge that freedom to limit other people's access to the internet cannot be a thing.
Speech should be answered with speech, not with repression.
Anyway Cloudflare seems more than happy to host them. They host malware, too.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
While I like the sentiment of that statement, it is proven wrong by current law.
Limitations on speech include: ...and more. We have limits on speech, but they are affirmative limits rather than prior restraint, which is what must be fought against. A person should be free to say anything they wish, but society must be able to hold them to account should such speech result in harm. And here in the US that used to be the case. Now more and more are heard calls to silence, censor, and prevent, and that is what we should be fighting against (and many are). But our politicians are happy to go all knee-jerk on anything they think will get them a few more votes next cycle, and that is pushing more and more bad law upon all of us. The only way to fight this is to be MORE vocal to your State and local leaders than those who want a nanny state in the false belief they'll be fine under one.
defamation
slander
assault (threats)
lible
Kicking some combative/abusive drunk out of your bar isn't censoring their right to have a beer.
"Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences." When did this become the new catchphrase of the internet to justify their doxxing? If you aren't free of consequences for speech then you have no freedom of speech. That's a fact.
You are advocating responding to speech with violence.
Do you not see the hypocrisy of your statement?
I'm 99% sure that they can get their domain registered through an Iranian registrar. Just because you can't get a .com doesn't mean you are being censored. In the same way that just because you can't get published in Nature doesn't mean you can't get published in another journal.
Today I learned that Google is apparently a domain registrar as well.
This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.
It is their servers, they can choose what to have on it and what to delete.
DNS is not "their servers". It is a pointer to IP address responsible for resolving queries for a domain loaded into global root server database.
Because of a slew of laws that may or may not make the information holder liable for for the content. It is safer to take off what would be considered dangerous.
DNS is not "information holder". It's a pointer to a pointer to information.
Then why isn't the responding hatred from KKK, Nazis, male chauvinists, etc?
Why the double standard?
Seems like you have a theory of 'original hate'. Which was stupid the first time the Christians came around with that idea.
The Federalist papers were published under a pseudonym - to this day there is still some debate on who wrote some of them.
Somehow I doubt that those that wrote them, who were among the most influential Founding Fathers (Hamilton, Madison, and Jay), believed that non-anonymous speech was the only speech that should be protected.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
What if Google discontinued registration for your website just because it's used to advocate the subjugation, terrorizing, and murder of "non-white" people?
One of these things is not like the others.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
In another day and age, you would have justified deportation to the gulag with the exact same words.
Ah yes, the second classic - or intentional - misunderstanding of free speech. The right to free speech only applies to political speech and the government's attempt to suppress it. In a private context -- the case here -- there is no requirement for one party to provide another party with anything.
Nice try to put words in my mouth, but of course that not what I said or implied.
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
We need an alt-DNS and just bypass google and their SJW nonsense.
Consider this:
I invite an individual into my house. They start talking about how having sex with minors is perfectly okay and shouldn't be against the law, how it should be accepted as 'normal' and 'natural' by society in general, and that anyone who disagrees with them is a prude and is totally wrong. Furthermore they infer that they've had sex with underage children and you thought it was great. I'm completely and utterly opposed to all of this, it's all completely wrong so far as I'm concerned, and I tell this person they have to leave, immediately.
Using your logic, I shouldn't have the right to tell them to leave, even though it's my house and they're a guest.
It's Googles' house, and those people were guests. Google told them "GTFO" because it's against their rules.
A private company is not bound by the Constitution in the same way that the Government is. The Government may have to put up with jackasses like that speaking their minds (so long as they aren't breaking any laws, that is) but a private company like Google or Go Daddy doesn't have to.
Your argument would be valid if this was a site dedicated to the instructions on the manufacture of explosives, munitions and gorilla warfare tactics. It is not; It is a site full of opinion and editorials.
Not being allowed to yell fire in a theater is about preventing an immediate panic, not the proper and allowable usage of the word "fire".
Your arguing the wrong point - but I think you know that. By the definition of speech worthy of protection you give; Both the Declaration of Independence and the Emancipation Proclamation were hate speech unworthy of protection or defense by society at the points in time they were created. War and death are directly attributable to both after all.
That is an opinion that you are having.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
Nobody is obligated to host their hate speech. Extend that to the hosting of the domain name registration.
Can't they simply look for a company that embraces hate speech and do business with them?
If not, maybe they should reconsider.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
If you aren't free of consequences for speech then you have no freedom of speech. That's a fact.
No, that's your opinion. If it's a "fact," then please cite a reference.
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
Even my foolish enemies should be allowed to express themselves.
Sure. But Google is a private company, not the U.S. Government, and they don't have to do any such thing if it's in violation of their Terms of Service, which if the Wihte Supremacist group didn't read first and agree to abide by, then that's not on Google. I'm sure they can find some scumbag webhost that literally doesn't care what they're hosting so long as the bills are paid on time.
It's a somewhat grey area, but Google has made it not grey. By taking responsibility for one racist website's content, they are taking responsibility for all the other websites they host. Great PR move, terri-bad legal move.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
Free speech is a moral ideal. Google's "don't be evil" is so long gone... Sure it's a private company, and they can re-educate their employee as much as they'd like, but it doesn't make brainwashing moral.
Toleration is not a moral precept.
It's a necessary requirement of a free society.
What if Google fired you because you said there were differences between men and women ?
Oh and as to the rest of what you said? Sure, they're outing themselves bigtime. The scumbag hosting they'll inevitably get? Probably not very well protected against hacking. They'll get hacked and DDoS'd all to hell. And yes, you can say whatever you want in this country -- but the Court of Public Opinion will pass judgement on you for it, whatever it is. If you walk into a biker bar and yell "ALL YOU PUSSY BIKERS ARE FAGS!", you're probably going to get beaten to a pulp for it. So it goes with public opinion.
Let me know when you manage to get your grandmother to access facebook by typing in the IP.
Also, sometimes the IP isn't enough. Try typing in the IP of your website on a shared hosting service.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
No one is required to use Google services.
Boo hoo hoo!
Well, if we ever successfully depreciate DNS and make the internet truly peer to peer and symmetrical (up/down), the issue will be moot. Right now our ISPs are denying our right to host content ourselves, so yes while we remain dependent on others to do so, we need legislation to protect that right. We need to apply the 1st Amendment to their business. They have no right to discriminate against a paying customer over their content. Google and godaddy are "bakeries" that are violating our rights.
It is so sad to see the civil rights movement be completely usurped by the politically correctness of today's phony "liberals" who still cling to the democratic party.
Boy, you've got fucked-up ideas about "rights" and the 1st amendment. This is why governenment should be taught in schools.
I'm not saying you're wrong...but the whole "let them thrive so they make fools of themselves" approach obviously hasn't worked out very well in our past election. More must be done if we don't want evil to win, and fighting back against their vicious propaganda campaign, supported by some of the highest in command, is crucial.
Germany censors nazis, and what do you know! They're higher than the USA on the "Democracy Index"....
What if the post office refused to carry your mail because you mailed out a communist manifesto?
What if AT&T refused to give you a land line because you called a politician and told them to ban weasels from your county?
Then you call the police because they are breaking the LAW. Unless you wrote your 'manifesto' on the back of a postcard, they'd have to open your mail, which I believe is a felony. If AT&T is listening in on your phone calls for no reason then I believe that is also a felony.
What if the power company cut service to your home because you operate a HAM radio and broadcast your own smooth jazz renditions of pop songs?
Aside from "how would they know?", YOU would be in violation of FCC rules and regulations which prohibit doing precisely what you described. Also you'd be sued by ASCAP for not paying royalties, unless you'd made arrangements for that already.
Try some better examples to make your point, okay?
It is not moral to force anyone to broadcast speech someone else has made. It is not moral to force someone to run their business in the way you want. Capitalism and the free market provide you with an adequate means of expressing your displeasure: don't buy their product, or work for their company. Your true fascist ideals are showing, you want the freedom to use violence to force others to do your bidding.
If you are fine with people forcing Google to broadcast someone else's hate speech, you should be fine with me coming on your property at 4am and screaming loudly about you having sex with chickens. If you respond in any way, you are silencing my free speech. If you are fine with forcing Google to act in a certain way, you should be fine with me forcing you to run your household in a certain way.
Either you believe in private property, or you're a communist. Or, I guess you could just be a garden variety hypocrite,
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Classic (or perhaps deliberate) misunderstanding of our right to free speech. Yes, we must stand up for the rights of others we vehemently disagree with to say what they're gonna say. But no, nobody owes them a platform or a pedestal. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
Here is the problem with your point of view.
Today, you think future elections will go differently and a more Bernie-like person will be in office with a liberal government and every site taken down deserves it.
It's also possible that Trump isn't enough and the next round will be farther right.... and when your speech is silenced, and your job disappears when you try to speak, and someone comes take you away in the night, you will regret allowing someone else being silenced.
It is short sighted to think that these tools silencing others will never be used against you. Like nuclear weapons, it's better to figure out how to not need to use them at all. If you can't show that the crap posted on that web site is wrong with a logical, reasoned argument and showing a better way then how would anybody be convinced you are right at all?
Nah, it's market forces. Google own the domain registry; they can do whatever they want with their property. Freedom of action applies equally in all directions.
How is it alarming? The town square is still open. You still are free to find some other registrar and/or hosting provider. Google and GoDaddy have no more moral obligation to host The Daily Stormer than I have an obligation to let a Neo-Nazi lecture me in my living room. I don't see how Congress has any obligation to create a forum for the Neo-Nazis either. Congress is restricted by the constitution from interfering with the Neo-Nazis lawful use of their free speech, but nowhere in the Constitution is it required that Congress give them a helping hand.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'd say certain registrars (.us, and probably .com) should not be able to revoke registration (or increase pricing to target specific domains) if something is not illegal.
Even that would be unsatisfactory, because some stuff is illegal under US law but not under the laws of other countries and vice versa.
The current situation is probably as good as it gets. For political reasons ICANN defers to registrars, because if it didn't it would be take away from US control anyway. And sites like thepiratebay.org manage to have their TLDs registered in countries with less draconian, corporate authored laws than the US and 99.9% of people are happy with that.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You must have been living under a rock for the last decade or two. Google, Facebook, Twitter and every other site that hosts content has always been held accountable for the stuff they host. Legally they have some protection, but public opinion of them doesn't care.
There has been a constant balancing act with freedom of expression on one side and their desire to purge the worst stuff. Oh, and don't forget advertisers, their main source of revenue.
People do hold Google responsible for every nasty video on YouTube. Google is okay with that.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It's well know that Krispy Kreme is a Black Panthers front operation. Hell, they lure the police in with free coffee.
It is alarming if, in fact, it is particularly difficult for such organizations to find a registrar that will accept them so they can gain access to the new public square. As long as it's easy (which, I would agree, it likely still is) there is not a problem.
However, by a (quasi)government organization offering an open viewpoint neutral gate (at least as regards to DNS) to the public square, it would insure that one day we don't discover that the entire square is surrounded by gates which a few private companies control and who say: "Sure, you can speak freely in the international public square -- IF you can get in and, sorry, our gate is closed to you and all the owners of the other gates have also closed their gates to you".
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Your last example is really bad, because the FCC themselves would cut you off if you intentionally broadcast anything, but especially music, over ham radio. Ham radio is for two-way communication and music playing is forbidden, presumably to avoid any appearance of any casual competition with established media channels.
The Left is all on board for making the internet accessible to all because "internet is a right", but is totally okay with Google hijacking a Nazi domain, even though the group can't register a domain without going through a commercial reseller. The only thing worse than a racist, is a scumbag who ethics are on sale to a bankrupt ideology that doesn't give a crap about equality.
I love how you were modded up and the GP was modded down.
Maybe because the GP made less sense than the post that was modded up?
Classic millenial pot smoking safe space baby talk.
None of those words mean anything to the rest of us.
Even my foolish enemies should be allowed to express themselves.
Nobody is stopping them from expressing themselves. They agreed to some terms of service, and violated those terms of service.
Does it not make sense to you people that these who express themselves in this manner are EXPOSING themselves for what they are which is a GOOD THING?
We know what a Fascist is, and we know what Nazism is. There was a thing last century where we got to know them and the downsides of their philosophy in good enough definition for the average person to make a call on how to react to Neo-Nazism. Maybe do some research.
If your views are so toxic that no one will do business with you, well then that's the marketplace at work. And I still don't buy that the government has even the tiniest bit of obligation to offer you a helping hand.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
nothing to do with net neutrality, idiot
The US has built the world's most powerful surveillance system, the most powerful system of oppression ever seen.
That's the prize for whoever takes power. The far right is dangerously close.
Be careful and good luck.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Is there such a thing as a decentralized DNS? I suppose it can be done through Tor, Freenet, or something (is Freenet still a thing?).
It's not that I agree with the sites that have been taken offline but if they can be taken out because "people don't like it" then what guarantee do you have that your own sites won't be taken out for any random reason? This is not a good precedent.
Maybe Tucows decide they hate geeks and Slashdot doesn't deserve the privilege of DNS. Boom, gone! Just like that and with no recourse. That's fucked up! There should be laws that protect DNS as a critical function.
mod parent up, ToS enforcers have their rea$ons...
Suddenly, you're a proponent a free market ? [sic]
Yes but in Canada their are Human Rights Commissions whose purpose is to 'prosecute' wrongthink so we don't have to bother with such outdated concepts as "courts" or "laws".
Until recently many of these commissions had near 100% 'conviction' rates and while, to the best of my knowledge, they could not impose any jail time they could in fact bankrupt the accused. They are pretty much the definition of kangaroo courts where 'truth' is not considered a defense.
The HRCs in Canada were so bad that one lawyer (a former Canadian HRC member) was responsible for over half the hate speech complaints and in some cases was shown to actually have commented on the sites he complained about under a pseudonym to help drum up more racist comments to then complain about.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Depreciate? Is DNS for sale at a lower cost than it was bought for?
If you accept the terms of service, you can't complain when your domain is seized after you violate them. You should find a registrar with terms you agree with before you host your domain with them.
In the free market of ideas the best ideas always win.
If your ideas require an artificial monopoly via censorship to stay afloat then your ideas are weak and deserve to die.
Survival of the fittest.
I think it means exactly that.
Then you are mistaken. It only means that the government can't censor you. Your friends and family could turn their backs on you in response to hate speech, for instance. Your employer might fire you for being racist or misogynist. Protesters might show up outside your house to alert your neighbors to the fact that you're an enormous douchebag. Any of these things count as "consequences", and "freedom of speech" shields you from exactly none of them.
Is that really so hard to understand?
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
In a free and open discussion the best ideas always wins.
If you need to censor competing ideas then you're admitting that your own ideas are weak.
The truth is you're just an authoritarian dickbag who can't handle people holding different opinions to you so you feel the need to shut down conversation and brainwash people with your weak ideas
Did you even read the wikipedia page on the paradox of tolerance?
The page literally says we need to censor people like you who advocate restrictions on free speech.
"Open" means "open", not "free". The FOSS guys have been telling you this for years. Open doesn't necessarily mean free.
ICANN is an international organization now, and has been since last year.
The post office (in the US, where you're probably from) is a government entity. It is barred from violating the first amendment, or, more to the point on the topic you raised, the fouth.
AT&T is a corporation and can do whatever the fuck it wants. Literally, in most cases. They're the phone company. They don't have to care. And they don't. And that reputation is well deserved.
The power company can cut service to your home if they want, but they're a regulated utility under the moderately watchful eye of the public utility commission for your jurisdiction. In exchange for a monopoly, they've received government oversight and regulation. That includes a basic imposition of the restrictions the government also faces, as they cannot regulate something as closely as they regulate utilities if the utilities are allowed to do things that go beyond the government's authority. (So they can't violate your first amendment rights because they're under heavy, direct regulation by the government, and the government is restricted from violating your first amendment rights.)
Neither. There is no obligation either morally or legally that Google, GoDaddy or anybody else should host objectionable, illegal or inciteful content if they don't wish to do so. Boo hoo for the nazis, they'll have to get a static IP and host their own server.
Wait, they shut down a Nazi website and you think that makes them evil? What are you, some kind of Nazi?
So when #PresidentTweety says "on many sides" and "not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama", it was just more pathological lying. No surprise.
YES, DONALD TRUMP. The racists LOVE you and you LOVE them. You, Donald Trump, YOU HATE AMERICA.
The carefully scripted apology General Kelly forced Trump to read is too little, too late. We don't want a hostage video. Trump is trying to pretend he's being honest because he's such an obvious liar that no sane person can think he is anything but a YUGE pathological liar.
So you think you're not a liar because no one can believe a word you say and they must know that by now? WTF?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
America's enemy is Putin's friend.
There's no point guaranteeing freedom *of* speech, no country can prevent that. It's freedom *after* speech we want. If you're correct that in it not being guaranteed by the US constitution, then I don't understand why people are so proud of that piece of paper in the first place.
Google is not a public utility.
You are a hypocrite. If the fiber that runs your packets are mine, I can decide if I want to throttle your packets if I so choose if our contract says so. Or do you disagree with this based on net neutrality points? you have a right to free speech on my fibrecables? Or not even free speech as you packets are being delivered but at a slower rate. If you are for net neutrality you have to be for unlimited free speech. Else you are a hypocrite.
One: You're conflating government restrictions with private companies exercising their right to free association.
Two: You're ignoring that there are several categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. (That's probably fair under these circumstances, though, as we're not talking about defamation or true threats here, we are talking about protected speech.)
Speaking as a free white / cis / man, you're a fool and Nazis are cunts.
Define your terms.
Who's "we", what's "let", and what's "whatever they want"?
Most kinds of speech are protected. Private individuals and entities are free to respond to speech they don't like with free speech of their own, whether that's a reasoned criticism, childish name-calling, boycotts, or, as in this case, telling their customers that they don't want their business. They're not free to respond with violence or other illegal behavior.
Some forms of speech aren't protected. Those are the forms that the government is allowed to punish.
It's National Socialists vs International Socialists.
They're all socialists, and they all want control. That's what the fight is about.
Hey guys and gals! Just want to pass along my props. I don't always agree with you, but hey, it's a free country. Thanks for fighting the good fight and helping to keep the Internet free and open. For every Google that wants to censor your right to be heard, ten thousand Zieg Heils! are born. Awesome work, dudes. Let's keep the Internet free and uncensored!
Wait a minute, if a baker can be forced to bake a wedding cake, a pizza shop forced to make pizzas, and a photographer forced to photograph weddings they find offensive, why can't a DNS provider be forced to provide DNS services for a group they dislike?
Is it because Google has 'Terms of Services' that says they don't have to provide services to people and groups they find offensive?
That's BS, under the public accommodation laws that hit bakeries, pizza parlors, and photographers, how can Google (or GoDaddy) get away with this?
Ken
It's nowhere near on the same plane as ISIS websites. Your assertion is really a stretch.
Citation Please. Hyperbole is a tool best used in moderation. I don't think your use of it here helps the persuasiveness of your arguments.
ToS vs Free Speech matters. The Status Quo is Not Good Enough. Encourage this debate, don't write it off. It matters. A lot.
No it just means the government won't send a death squad to your house at 2am because you said something.
If someone else kills you for your words that has nothing to do with the first amendment, that is just murder and it's already illegal.
... for reference, see Paula Deen wherein TOS says (paraphrase):
You fuck with our revenue stream, we'll can your ass.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Political views don't make one a member of a protected class.
I think a reasonable argument can be made that it should. However, legally, it does not.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Do you have a problem with ISIS recruitment websites, including those showing beheadings and calling for death to apostates?
They should have a site, and we should have everyone watch those videos so they can see what ISIS is really about - the killing of innocent people.
It's close to the proverbial yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
The court has long retracted that argument. Not to mention the guy they applied this rule to was distributing anti-war fliers. Source.
Trump's FCC is doing away with common carrier status for ISPs. They didn't become common carriers until 2015.
https://arstechnica.com/inform...
Exactly!
Public utilities are held to very different standards than private corporations to protect exactly the scenarios you just described.
I dunno...
I am pretty content letting them speak, unless the make credible threats. I am even okay with letting them advocate violence. Ultimately, the choice to act resides with the individual.
Once upon a time, this was considered a very leftist view. Speech you don't like is countered by speech you do like. It's even possible to be civil. Shitty people wilt in the light. Let them speak. Expose their speech. Let the world see how horrible they are.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
There are some Christian groups who believe that they should not have to make a wedding cake for gays because it is against their beliefs
Supporters say, its their business, they can do what they like.
There are some people who believe that they should not have to host Hate sites because it is against their beliefs
Those who oppose this say "Free speech" is being destroyed.
So which is it, because those two ideas are diametrically opposed to each other.
You can not have it both ways.
If you believe web sites can be forced to host material they object to, then you must also agree that churches must host gay weddings.
What happened is horrible but why doesn't he media decry black lives matter racists or radical Islamic terrorizes or any of the other non white hate groups? Seems they are kn a witch hunt rounding up everyone who's white heterosexual Christian etc for their trophy wall. Hate it hate, don't protect any of the haters even if the target of their hatred is white.
You're dodging his question. Suppose it were his Communist Party registration postcard. Should the post office be permitted to deny him service?
What if you were Gay and wanted to get Married in a church ? There were certainly marriages before the birth of christ, and there are certainly marriages in other cultures and religions, so christianity can not claim to have ownership of the principles of Marriage.
The door of my local library is open. Anyone can wander in.
But there are limits to the behavior of anyone who comes in.
Does that mean the library is not open?
The library has rules, so do companies that offer services on the internet. The Post Office has rules and a list of material you can't mail also.
I would object to the power company having rules that prohibited operating a ham radio station and none do. Let me know if this is an actual concern of yours or you are just coming up with ridiculous things that people could prohibit that aren't at all similar to Google telling the Daily Stormer that their hate filled site violates Google's Terms of Service.
I don't weep for the Daily Stormer getting quick boot from Google and I don't weep for people being arrested for yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
I'd fire anyone who worked for me who published divisive rants about men and women.
I have no interest in people who engage in drama in the workplace.
Your examples are pretty terrible:
1) The post office can refuse service. Try mailing gasoline or not putting a stamp on your envelope. Either can be construed to free speech.
2) The phone company can refuse service. Try not paying your phone bill or mucking around with their network. Either can be construed to free speech.
3) The FCC will come down on you like a ton of bricks for broadcasting music of any kind as a HAM operator. You are very limited by what you can say on the air as well. In addition to no music, there is no cursing, no code words, and a requirement to identify yourself. HAM radio is a terrible venue for free speech as you cannot be anonymous and cannot say anything you want. Beyond this, any real HAM operator doesn't need the power company to run their station.
The right to free speech only applies to political speech
Here's the catch, though. "U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement should round up all the Muslims and deport them" is political speech. "Police should have broader powers to use lethal force on (non-white) criminals" is political speech. "Because all Jews are members secret organization that's bent on world domination, they should be prohibited from holding public office" is political speech.
It's repugnant, it's horrible, it's flat out wrong -- but it's political speech. It's advocating that the government enact particular policies -- which, if "political speech" has any meaning, should count as political speech. They're policies that most reasonable people would reject out of hand, but it's still advocating a political policy. I'm pretty sure that if you looked at The Daily Stormer (I haven't and have no desire to), you could find similar such "political speech" therein.
The danger is that when you say "oh, these viewpoint on governmental policies are repugnant and don't count as political speech" you start to play a dangerous game about where you draw the line. And history tells us that the line drawers are rarely end up on the side of the general public -- even if they start out that way.
and the government's attempt to suppress it.
The problem is that the role of "government" tends to get fuzzy when the government cedes power to private citizens.
"Oh, Guido here? He's not part of the government, he's just a concerned citizen who wishes to express disagreement with what you said. We in the government respect the principle that 'Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences', so we fully support Guido's right, as a private citizen, to disagree with you by judicious application of a baseball bat to your knees. You are perfectly free to reciprocate the gesture, provided you can get past Rocco, Vincenzo and Anthony, also private citizens, and also expressing their disagreement with what you say by a headlock, a kidney punch, and brass knuckles, respectively."
Sure, you can raise objections to the use of violence in this example, but that's only illustrative of what happens when government cedes power (here the right to inflict physical violence) to private entities. You can imagine other scenarios which don't involve violence, such as a group launching a smear campaign against you, or someone purchasing any company which employs you (or your wife or your children) and then firing you (with bad references). Or buying up your mortgage and turning the screws. Or buying any apartment complex where you live and systematically evicting you (with bad references), or buying surrounding properties and boxing you in ... I could go on. If you're the big and powerful, there's a lots of ways to fuck with someone which don't require physical violence.
"But that's illegal!" you may say. Well, yes, that's the point. "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" but we realize that large entities throwing around their power - even their power as private citizens - to harass people they don't like isn't good, and we prohibit it. Government failing to take an active role in protecting citizens with particular viewpoints is tantamount to the government implicitly suppressing said speech.
I am heterosexual, white, college educated, earn a salary high enough to disqualify me from using the many tax breaks available to those with a lower income but not high enough to take advantage of the tax breaks afforded the wealthy
Exactly what tax breaks are you missing? Can't you deduct the interest on your mortgage? Are your investments taxed at a higher rate than 'the wealthy' pay? Is your income taxes at a higher rate than 'the wealthy'?
I think you imagine tax breaks that don't exist, the disparity you perceive in the current tax code is based on the disparity of the sources/types of income you enjoy vs 'the wealthy' - I imagine the bulk of your income is from a salary (based on your comments), and 'the wealthy' have investments as the bulk of their income.
You aren't missing any tax breaks, no matter the source of the income, tax rates only go up as the income increases.
Ken
Not sure you understand net neutrality:
Not sure you understand what net neutrality means. It would mean that if said neo-nazi's paid a premium, their message would be more accessible than those with more sensible messages, but with shallow pockets.
It means their message (web page, content) would download faster - kinda like priority mail versus first class mail.
Ken
Dictatorship? Because there aren't 10,000 other companies that will register your website domain for you?
That argument didn't work for wedding cake bakers or wedding photographers in the US that didn't want to participate in gay weddings, why does it work here?
Ken
Black Lives Matter is just as a racist group as neo-nazi groups. Will Google black them too? Hell the name ALONE is racist! ALL LIVES MATTER not just black lives. I am sick and tired of all racism being pointed at white people especially white males! ALL racism is bad! Including REVERSE racism! it's a hate crime when a white person beats up a black person, but not when a black person beats up a white person. REALLY? SERIOUSLY? WTF is wrong with society!!!!! ANY race beating up someone of another race purely because of that persons race is a HATE CRIME PERIOD!
All lives matter - PERIOD! White, Black, Hispanic, Oriental whatever!
As someone from a German decent I abhor neo-nazi rhetoric and white supremacy rhetoric - Adolf Hitler was a lunatic and a murderer - period! And YES the Holocaust DID happen! While stationed in Germany with the US Military I visited Auschwitz that horrid place DOES exist - and YES Jews were unconscionably MURDERED there by the thousands! This kind of thing MUST NOT happen EVER again!
Neo-nazi's, BLM, the KKK, La Raza, these are ALL racist groups! We must ALL speak out against them ALL, not just the white racist groups but ALL racist groups!
So WAKE THE FUCK UP everyone! Especially the FUCKED up Republican, Democratic and Liberals! Racism exists in ALL races not just white races!
I have visited many countries in this world and all the regular people in those countries are good people I never met anyone I didn't get along with (well except for the French in Paris - they hated American for some reason) - I LOVED the French outside of Paris - wonderful people! especially in northern France! I even partied with Russian Romanians on New Years Eve - what a fun bunch of people!!!!!! And the Russian vodka they brought was far better than ANYTHING we get in the US! One of these days I want to visit Russia itself. Europe was a fun place - people are really nice and friendly. I really enjoyed my time in South Korea - great people and OMG the food is SOOOO good there! If you have NEVER been to South Korea and eaten in their restaurants you are missing out! "Subway Surfing" in Seoul Korea is fun if you haven't tied it - you need to!
If you really want to know about another race - INTERACT with them! You wold be surprised how many people of other races are nice people. You can learn allot from them and they from you. And I would say the BEST way to interact with them is over food! Have lunch or dinner with them - eat THEIR kind of food. What do you have to lose? Sure you may find some kinds of food you don't like or can't because of allergies. I will admit, I had a hard time with Afghan food. But enjoyed the conversation over lunch.
The Truth is a Virus!!!
No. The moment you limit any speech, you jeopardize all speech.
Agreed - speech everyone agrees with doesn't need protection.
Ken
What you propose isn't at all unreasonable, however, right now we are seeing lefty intolerance of the extremist alt-right, the right, the moderate right, and even the centrists. They're using any means they can find to censor the right, to punish the right, while at the same time using hateful exaggerations and mockery in their speech about the right, the same speech they want to censor. The irony is, if the right were doing exactly the same thing to the left is here, it would be considered evil.
Google is now evil.
And before you go on about it, I don't at all condone the speech on the site which has been shut down, nor do I condone white supremacy or any of the violent madness.
if tjeu want a glimmer of hope of.getting back in then they havr to prove they didnt violate the ToS. legal mumbo jumbo, but still legally enforceable whem there attention is brought yo bear.
i would say 1 of those 3 has qualities that invalidate it, namely truthiness. and all of them fall i to hate speech as they advocate changes to long held constitutional principles. but maybe im just not a literal interpeter. its all a game of whack a mole...hit google for doing wrong, err see my ToS so gov jas no power, hit gov.for not fighting it well then they are dictating free choice of a business. the only uswful way to progress on these philosophical questions is not to be one dimensional. edit: nothing, my thumbs are too.big.
The pendulum is swinging - wait your turn, it's coming.
Bingo. There is truly despicable content out on the internet which has no value, but censorship is a dangerous route to go down, and not something you do arbitrarily with things you do or don't agree with. Google's decision would be a lot more respectable if they would put forth a policy, but they aren't doing that. Personally I think there is stuff we need to keep off the internet, child pornography, beastiality, and homosexual pornography has no place on the American internet, and I think the majority of the country could agree with that. Google may not agree with that, they may be more focused on political speech, but that's always been a dangerous route for societies to go down, and Google can be taken care of. Any company that gets too big can be brought to heel. The government has plenty of tools for breaking apart companies which have forgotten their place in society.
I know you said you weren't, but you kinda do sound like an interpeter. Or an small one at that.
It's close to the proverbial yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
"Holmes wrote in Abrams that the marketplace of ideas offered the best solution for tamping down offensive speech: "The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out."" - From The Atlantic.
we just entered the Twilight Zone®
I get it, I get it, you're a bigot and proud.
Congratulations.
So no, we don't have to let hateful organisations say whatever they want; the act of speaking such things is itself a kind of violence to our society. This doesn't mean that we should ban speech that makes us uncomfortable, or is unpopular. It DOES mean that speech that implicitly or explicitly advocates for genocide or violence is not worth protecting and is in fact speech that we should be actively attempting to limit by whatever means we can.
I must respectfully disagree. Violence is violence. Speech that advocates imminent violence (or that plans or coordinates violence) is suppressed because it leads to violence. Not because such speech _is_ violence.
It is entirely possible for speech advocating imminent violence to be valuable speech, but the cost of allowing such speech is too high. We are guaranteeing the right to talk, not guaranteeing the means to plan the fighting.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
This is why governenment should be taught in schools.
Indeed! You are a perfect example of its absence!
Hosting services, ISPs, etc. must be made content neutral or taken over. No discrimination allowed
Or try sending email to an ip address.
False paradox. There is a marked difference between those fighting for their rights, and those fighting to take away the rights and lives of others. Those overprivileged manbabies aren't even getting a sniff of what real prejudice feels like, yet are bawling to high heaven over their supposed illusory rights to have other people broadcast their hate for them.
Actually, the HAM radio example is a bad one. Broadcasting pop music of any sort is verboten on the amateur service, and the FCC will come looking for you for good reason--it's an abuse of the service.
Then arrest them for inciting violence and posing credible threats to human life. It comes down to being able to say "I think all jews should be killed" and not being able to say "join me in killing jews" one is a opinion which you can say the other is a threat to many peoples lives which laws exist to deal with them.
I've never visited the site, but I must say that I've seen the far left crying wolf so much lately that I just figured this was more of the same. If, however, what you say is true, that the site authors were posting inflammatory stories and inciting actual violence, then I totally agree that it should be shut down.
I think that most from the centre and right would feel the same way I do, and they too have probably jumped to the conclusion that the accusations levelled at this site are exaggerated. That's the problem with crying wolf, when you have something truly awful to cry about, you won't be heard (by the right). Assuming, of course, that you are portraying reality.
I know that aspect of history perfectly well. Once, they were indeed at war, and the Soviet Union did indeed pay more dearly than anyone else. There was a lot of mutual hatred between these groups for a very long time.
But the one constant of history is that times change. Alliances shift. These once-bitter foes have close mutual interests nowadays, and there can be no doubt that over those interests, they could strike a deal.
It would have been unthinkable even a decade ago, but the times have changed. The Nazis chant "Russia is our friend" nowadays. Can overtures the other way be far behind?
What better way to ensure the demise of these type of groups other than to allow them to spout their ignorance publicly?
I would like to say that registrars shouldn't want to get in the censorship game, but they already are by supporting totalitarian regimes.
> I think it is high time for there to be a public domain name registrar that does not restrict people's rights to free speech. I dislike white supremecists, neo nazis, and their brethren but they have a right to speak their minds.
There is no law preventing these people from starting their own domain registrar and allowing this kind of behaviour. They are currently registering their domains with private companies who are against this kind of behaviour/activity. Should that bother their right to free speech, they're welcome to go and start their own alt-right registrar, or move to Tor where no one can censor them.
I don't see how any court could rule that a private company is restricting their right to free speech. Private companies are perfectly within their rights to deny someone service (e.g. "fire the customer") and this is what GoDaddy and Google have chosen to do. While you may find it unsavoury, there is nothing illegal about their actions, nor are they restricting someone's right to free speech.
And what constitutes the limits of speech? Should it be legal for an officer to give an order to do something illegal, should they be protected from consequences of that speech? Should it be entirely legal to say and act upon the promise to tell someone the combination to a safe contained $20,000 dollars if they kill someone you specify and then tell them the combination? Should it be legal to phone the police and give them a well rehearsed and convincing, but false, story that requires them to do something that threatens an innocent individual? Should fraud laws be struck down as limits on freedom of speech? Should people be able to fabricate wills and claim they are real? Should lying in court be completely acceptable?
Consequences for any of those scenarios are consequences for speech. You can't support consequences for any of those while making an argument that limits on any speech are jeopardizing all speech.
If those cables are only on your property, then yes.
However, when those cables are placed on public utility easements, then you are subject to different regulation. Be thankful that these laws exist so that local municipalities cannot add a tax on the bandwidth or total data transfer.
Explain the continued tolerance of Islam... does it not call for infidels to be killed, converted or forced to pay a tax? Does it not call for sharia law?
Of course he dodged the question. I'd say kudos to him for not resorting to personal attacks, but you don't get a cookie for just not being as bad as the rest.
So, then, I'm sure I could search your history and find plenty of comments supporting Israel's right to keep Palestinians out of they're country and fight Islamists with all the might available to them, right?
How old are you? Are you less than 31 years old? If so, welcome to the Millenials club, bruh. If not, and you're not a post-millenial, then please take some time to grow up.
Rotflmfao. I love this site.
Lol, using ip to send mail is allowed and it works (put square brackets around the ip), though it may not make it through a spam filter. Someuser@[192.168.1.1] is a perfectly valid email address under the rfc.
Because the baker isn't furthering their message by baking a cake. It is the difference between discriminating against a person, vs discriminating against a hate message. A printer would not be obligated to print a white supremacy newspaper. An isp is not obligated to host a web site with the same message.
Your speech is free until the very instant you break the law and promote the idea of physical violence. Then you no longer have the right to speak.
And it is protected, but the Google case isn't a First Amendment issue so the point is moot. If you want a digital equivalent of the town square, we're not talking about fully anonymous speech anymore. In the town square, one person cannot pretend to be a thousand, a person in California can't pretend to be in Boston, and even a masked individual can be unmasked by fairly trivial means (noting distinguishing features or just following them until they take off the mask). Trusting the digital equivalent to the government or an agent of the government means also trusting them to verify the identities of every user. Because otherwise, it would just be a bunch of Russians paid to spread propaganda, like every other message board. Even if the public-facing side is anonymous, the back end would have to contain all identity info in the hands of a government-friendly entity.
The thing is, the analogy just doesn't fit. The Internet has never been a town square, it's a loose confederation of bulletin boards, publications, channelized broadcast feeds, and person-to-person communications on a new medium. What all of these have in common is that they only work on an infrastructure that someone has to maintain. That maintenance includes rules for use. And when maintaining the infrastructure becomes more trouble than it's worth, it goes away.
Bringing it back to the town square, even that requires maintenance. And so there are rules limiting what you can bring onto it and what you can do while you're there. And then someone's "speech" runs into these rules because it involves seizure-inducing strobe lights, blaring sirens in the middle of the night, or incitements to violence. When they get shut down for breaking the rules, they cry foul and sue. If it happens enough, people just avoid the town square and/or it gets shut down for safety reasons. And so we're left with little more than curious relics like the various Speakers' Corners scattered around the world. The town square is long gone and the Internet had nothing to do with it.
Obviously said by a person whose deductions aren't limited. There most certainly are tax breaks that people in the middle can't take advantage of. As just one example, I can't get any tax benefit from contributing to a Roth IRA. I'm limited.
Agreed. Better to know who the devil is than to guess
Classic (or perhaps deliberate) misunderstanding of our right to free speech. Yes, we must stand up for the rights of others we vehemently disagree with to say what they're gonna say. But no, nobody owes them a platform or a pedestal. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
You do realize they were kicked off the internet for writing a disrespectful article about a someone killed while marching with antifa, right? This isn't a slippery slope, this is reaching the bottom of the slope and is very, very scary.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
The way I see this, the internet companies could be trying to trip up the FCC's current Anti-Net Neutrality stance.
Now the FCC has a choice, regulate internet service providers (and that includes hosting and domain registration providers) according to Net Neutrality guidelines, or don't.
If Net Neutrality doesn't apply, well, then internet companies are perfectly free to shut down any website they deem fit, or at least refuse to host/carry their content, their DNS registration or issue them SSL certificates or otherwise do business with them.
You do realize they were kicked off the internet for writing a disrespectful article about a someone killed while marching with antifa, right? This isn't a slippery slope, this is reaching the bottom of the slope and is very, very scary.
Oh, puh-leeze. Restrictions on free speech are only an issue when it is government dictating or suppressing political speech. This is a situation where a private ISP is choosing not to have a relationship with a private customer. Google owes the fascist cucks exactly squat. Not slippery. Not scary. Plenty more ISPs and registrars that cater to the underbelly.
You want slippery and scary? Look at the story where Orange45 is trying to get all the records from one ISP to identify all users of a website and what content each user saw.
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
They have the right to speak, but not he right to be free of consequences.
If they abuse their privileges by spreading hate then private companies and registrars have every right to withdraw those privileges.
If you are free of consequences, then your speech means nothing and hence it doesn't matter whether you have free speech or not. When people communicate by speech, they expect consequences. They hope that the salt will be passed, or that the Uber driver will take them to the airport, or that the person on the other end of the line will add HBO to their cable subscription. Maybe they hope to impress their boss or please their significant other. All of these things are consequences.
You're saying that you should be able to pick and choose your consequences. That's not how the world works.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
"Women are equal to men." "Blacks are equal to whites." "Jews and blacks should be killed." "Gays are equal to straights."
One of those sentences is not like the others, despite all of them having been unpopular at some time or another. Go ahead. Take your time, and then your best guess, since you obviously can't tell the difference easily.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
LOL if you want to out yourself as a Communist that's your business, it's not illegal to espouse Communist philosophies, but enjoy be ostracised by the rest of the country. You can publicly claim to be a Furry, too, and that's not illegal, but you're never going to be taken seriously by many people, either. Now, if you're actively a seditionist, actively working to undermine and sabotage the U.S. government and it's interests? Then enjoy being arrested for being an enemy of the United States.
You're also failing at redirecting me, I haven't forgotten that ALL his examples suck and he should find better ones -- and you should go troll someone else.
At a certain level no I do not have a problem with letting anyone connect. For one thing we get a lot of intelligence by keeping these sites up. It's very telling to see who posts there, what they say, and how they related to each other. That' one of the reasons that the U.S. government doesn't try harder to get the Islamist sites shut down.
I've sure the police have got a plethora of great back story and possibly even evidence from James Fields' browser history. If he's charged with a federal hate crime I'm betting a warrant for his search history and phone records will reveal even more useful information.
What hate laws are gay people violating? It's not against the law to be gay. Oh shit, this is the US, with fucking retarded laws on what kind of sex you can have.
Da-Nold! Da-Nold!
Your big fans, the KKK and other White Supremacist groups, want to let you know what a great job you are doing! Placing blame for violent protests by White Supremacists on "all sides", that was brilliant!
The KKK says Thank You, Da-Nold! You are the Best! In fact they might say you are a Wizard! Even a Grand Wizard!!
They seem to be stepping into it all the time lately. Happens when you do stupid SJW type stuff. They should learn to STFU more and not bow to SJW. Actually follow the laws we already have.
They should fire the CEO. Fire him now. No golden parachute for him. He violated the terms of service.
Explain, in detail, bakers being forced to make cakes against their beliefs again. You only have equivelencies as your foundation given that context.
Logic fail. Circular logic. Why is it necessary? Who gets to decide? Obviously you do.
Some people would argue that multiculturalism has collapsed every society with civil war. Why should every race but the white race be barred from pride and heritage and sovereignty while every last one of our homelands are being ethnically cleansed and colonized with millions of welfare migrants that bring nothing but hate and racism while lecturing us how evil and racist we are.
Forced mass immigration and Blkanization is bad for a country and society. People need to push back against you. You've been brainwashed by the fake media and anti-white propaganda that has taken over the media, our universities and our society.
In general I agree freedom of speech can have consequnces..... Ie spew crap and people can react.
However as it relates to to the use of the internet to express oneself I think we should consider it a utility.
For example should the power company refuse to provide electricity to people for there views
Should grocery stores refuse to sell you food?
In other words where does it stop and who decides and do we as a society want to lay the groundwork for mass thought policing
The "Paradox of Tolerance" relies on equivocation and slippery slope argumentation in favor of fascism called 'open society.' Sounds like George Soros propaganda at it's best. You have only to look to the EU where white people who point out the obvious facts associated with letting millions of young male Muslims into your country, with total abandon, result in mass rape, crime and problems, and those white people making factual observations are branded racist and thrown in jail. Reciting Churchill will land you in jail for being a racist, too. The fascist tolerance police target white people while the Muslims get to preach whatever hate in their mosque and radicalize under the guise of religion while plotting the overthrow of western civilization and have several wives and a dozen children all on welfare. Every effort is made by Soros to promote special privileges and lavish welfare packages upon foreign illegal welfare queens while the populace gets no such special privileges. The levels of puritanical political correctness insanity have gone critical.
This is the first time in a long time I've seen such robust, pertinent, intelligent, AND interesting discussion in the comment section. No matter which side you're on, well done. It's nice to see discussion that, as far as I've read right now, has remained coherent.
Leftist scum like you define "not wanting white people to cease to exist" as "wanting to murder anyone who isn't white"
You are an anti white liar
If you're not free from the consequences you don't have freedom of speech. It's pretty simple. Otherwise "free speech" means nothing. In North Korea they are free to speak, until they are put to death for it.
the counter to bad speech should be better speech, not censorship
They are under constants DDOS attacks and need to hide behind a CDN service and that means no access by IP.