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.
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...
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.
The alt-right was all about getting the Islamist off the internet. Well the road to censorship is a one way downhill one
Personally I think ridicule works better. War plays into their histrionic delusions. They love being in metaphorical wars.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
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.
Somebody who likely knows the end result and is hoping for a YUGE payday, a tremendous payday, a payday so big I'm telling you, that you'll be sick of paydays!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
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.
You could always register your domain with DreamHost. But I doubt extremist content would pass their TOS.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it -Evelyn Beatrice Hall/Patrick Henry/Voltaire et al
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...
You have a right to not be censored by the government. You have no right to not be censored by other citizens.
Don't be discouraged, you can still belong to the Klan and be a neo-Nazi.
Just don't expect most of society to look the other way.
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.
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...
Just as you have no right to not be offended by neo-nazis.
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.
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.
What do you have against faggots ?
don't worry, we're already looking your way, and you better run, fast. Let's see if you can outrun a 500hp monster ;-)
Maybe we're already closer [to 1984] than we thought
Actually, Idiocracy is an infinitely better analogy.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
the far-right wouldn't exist if not for antifa, BLM, radical islam and feminist.
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?
BS. Without companies like Google and the Internet, these Nazi guys would just be posting their drivel to lampposts. Get a grip.
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.
Actually what is being said is that hate speech isn't protected by the first amendment so this is much ado about nothing.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
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
I blame the excessive inhalation of diesel and welders smoke designing the perfect ram to plow an antifa crowed ;-) That being said, I need to rework my shop's ventilation system...
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
The only thing funnier than the idiotic comments being circulated by the alt-right ideologies is how vacuous the posters are. Total fail masters.
Largely a basket of Putin shitposters.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Exactly why its not worthwhile to provide them a platform as a business case
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
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.
Lol okay.
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.
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
non sequitur.
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.
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...
"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.
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.
Correct, but I'm also under no obligation to provide you with a platform for your speech. All I mustn't do is keep you from finding one where you can hold it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
...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.
That is true. Was google hosting their content or just their DNS? I thought it was their DNS.
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.
Come on, we pinpointed a batshit crazy SJW flag protest throughout the US using nothing but a live feed, running an alternative DNS infrastructure is trivial.
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.
Someone more clever than I could probably improve upon this.
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.
The speech should remain free so that we can identify and avoid the Nazis.
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?
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
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
A bassoon player once said something hurtful to me.
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."
"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.
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.
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.
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.
And collect per-click ad revenue as well?
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.
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
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.
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?
We have ToR
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 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.
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.
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
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!
I don't need a car, I've got guns and plenty of ammo too. Enough to defend myself against a pretty large SJW mob.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Google is not a public utility.
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.)
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.
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.
... 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...
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.
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.
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
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)
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 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?
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.
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.
Nope. I didn't notice anyone in this thread saying that Nazi propaganda should be illegal. Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, as long as it isn't direct incitement or slander or something like that.
Congress is making no law against Nazi propaganda, and (as the Fourteenth is interpreted) neither are any state legislatures or subordinate bodies. (Well, there's got to be a few, but they'll get tossed out at the first court challenge.) First Amendment supporters can be happy with the result.
That doesn't mean that any person or private organization has to help hate speech spread. There is no Constitutional right to stand in my living room and spew Nazi hate.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
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.
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.
Apparently making a truthful statement without the intent to incite or troll gets you marked as "Flamebait".
I was worried because dissenting and non-racist opinions are marked racist. Now I'm worried because someone trying to appeal to reason is offensive as well.