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.

Comments

Re:Freedom of speech? Devil's advocate

[mjwx]

Is Hate Speech very specifically called out as an exception to freedom of speech?

Here's the thing, Hate speech is not actually codified in law, unlike freedom of expression.

I live in the UK, you'll never be charged with "hate speech", hate speech and hate crimes are a catch all label used by the media, if you're charged with what the Daily Mail would call a "hate crime" you'll be given a specific charge by the court which is usually less offensive to the type of mouth breather that reads the Daily Mail. Usually its a crime like assault, vandalism or harassment that specifically and maliciously targets a protected class (I.E. race, gender, political affiliation, religion, et al.). The "hate" isn't a crime, you can be as hateful and bitter as you like. The crime is the crime, a hateful motivation is a modifier for a harsher penalty.

However this explanation makes too much sense and is not likely to get the knickers of the Daily Mail/Fox News crowd into a knot.

Re:In the words of Trump

[Dixie_Flatline]

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.