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.
I missed where the government was doing anything to restrict these Nazis speech.
Nope. It has been ruled under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that ISPs and hosting providers can act to remove harmful or objectionable material but are under no strict obligation to do so. This happens all the time when Google takes down sites that host malware, but they are not held liable for not taking down other sites (or not taking them down fast enough) that end up causing widespread damages.
There's plenty of hate speech on both sides, and, frankly, probably far more from the left than from the right.
Do you have any evidence of this or is it just something that sounds truthy to you?
We're entering dangerous ground...
First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out because I was not a Nazi ...
Common carrier status has been lost
That phrase does not mean what you think it means. Google is perfectly within their rights to do this. Research the Communications Decency Act.
You have a right to not be censored by the government. You have no right to not be censored by other citizens.
Am I the only who is increasingly worrying about this argument towards freedom of speech?
I mean, if every single public forum is owned by a company, this would mean that any company could dictate what can be talked about on their forums. All you need is people from the government being "good friends" with the media (or the other way around, media lobbying politicians and becoming "close friends") to began widespread internet censorship.
I know is an extreme, but given the current circumstances, it seems "being able to" create a mass censorship apparatus is each day closer, all of this with the approval of most people. And hey, it scares me.
This is actually far worse.
If the government takes action against you, you have due process and the right to sue them. While the courts can and do get things wrong from time to time, most judges at least make an effort to be thoughtful in their decisions. The Constitution protects your freedoms and you can be confident that someone will at least hear your case.
With the case of Google, they're responding to public outrage and making a business decision. They wouldn't turn away business unless they believed it would be harmful to them, in this case due to the possibility of bad publicity. However, public outrage is not restrained like the government is, and it is far more erratic. You may have some resource through Google's terms of service, but most companies place few restrictions on what they can do and include language allowing them to change the terms at their discretion. You probably can bring a civil case against Google or another business, but you don't have the Constitution to protect your rights.
This is a slippery slope. Once a website gets removed like this, people will expect the same thing to happen again under similar but perhaps a little less egregious circumstances. Public outrage isn't based on logic and reason, but on emotion and knee-jerk reactions. It's very inconsistent, as well.
Consider that many of the Ferguson protests were organized on social media. Although most of the protesters were peaceful, those that were not inflicted lots of damage on those who had no direct role in the killing of Michael Brown. Furthermore, the evidence strongly supports that the killing of Michael Brown was lawful, which is why the grand jury chose not to indict Darren Wilson on any charges. There was no crackdown on the protests being organized on social media. There was no logic and reason to the violence, first due to outrage over the killing of Michael Brown, then the decision of the grand jury not to indict the police officer responsible for the killing. Do you really want to trust the incredibly erratic public outrage to have a significant role in restricting freedom?
Google isn't turning away business for benevolent reasons. They're turning away this business because they believe continuing to host the site would lead to the loss of other business. It's based on the anticipated public outrage to hosting the site.
Which opens a fun can of worms. Google now indirectly supports every offensive site they're currently hosting.
This is sort of what I was thinking of. If you're trapped in your house, and have a phone that can only receive calls, and suddenly your phone is removed from every phonebook, every phone index, even if everyone disagreed with you, how would they be able to find you to hear your opinion?
Sure freedom of speech is specifically limited to government, but DNS is managed by private companies, and effectively all access to the internet and DNS is provided through private companies, not the government. If you can't register your domain on the internet, you don't have a voice here anymore.
moox. for a new generation.
Who is "approving" speech?
Google is simply distancing itself from a group it finds distasteful.
This isn't a free speech issue, no law states that you have to do business with everyone. In fact being able to choose who you do business or associate with within reason is a freedom that is at serious risk being trampled by the mistaken belief that you can say anything with no consequences.
Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of your speech. This isn't people being censored, its people being told their arseholes and they don't want anything to do with them.
Beyond this, falling back on the free speech defence is pretty much handing the argument to your opponent on a silver platter. It says the best reason you have for saying what you are saying is that it is literally not illegal for you to say it.
Think of it this way, you are able to walk into a restaurant and demand to call everyone who works there Mr or Mrs Cunt... This is not illegal but don't at all be surprised when you're asked to leave. Keep it up and you'll find yourself banned from every restaurant in town. Just because its not illegal to say something does not mean everyone else has to silently put up with you. Free speech has never protected you from criticism.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
> Again, it doesn't matter what you think.
Lol
> This has been ruled on by the courts.
This particular thing has not. Nor even really this class of things.
> Google has already used this power, for instance, to take down botnet C&C domains.
I doubt anyone feels the need to move to uncensored DNS to be able to enable botnets. But they may well feel that need when political speech starts getting silenced. As always, the most ludicrous and hateful people are the trial balloons in these cases: no one is going to set up an alternative DNS just for hatemongers. But make no mistake, it will expand far beyond that, and it will be applied unevenly across the political spectrum, so some people will be aggrieved well beyond the haters or whatever.
Also, there's plenty of defamation online. If we started stripping name resolution of every domain that hosts defamation, slashdot would be one of many victims.
Hosting is one thing, this is another. You simply can't push politics that low on the network stack man.
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?
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.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
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.
I'm sure that was a joke. At least, my immediate response to it was to burst into laughter.
... the joke being that the poem it's referring to was written about the Nazis. The they in "First they came for the Socialists..." were the Nazis. But inserting "Nazis" in the place of "Socialists", I think it's meant to point out the absurdity of Nazis and other white supremacists pretending to be the victims. They're the victimizers.
Yes you are right. From the updated statements the reason given by GoDaddy and Google was actually that they were praising the guy that ran her over and encouraging more people to do similar things, i.e. inciting violence.
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?
"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.
You do realize that is perfectly reasonable for Jews to hate Nazi's because of their actions.
It is perfectly reasonable for black people to hate the KKK because of their actions.
Women have every right to be pissed that they don't make the same money as men for the same jobs, yet you and like minded people simply discount their perfectly legitimate concerns by branding them "feminist haters"
...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
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.
Freedom of speech isn't absolute. Not in any country on Earth. Even the US has laws against some speech, like harassment, fraud and incitement.
Those are the bare minimum for a functioning society. Google goes a little further, but not much, by declining services to Nazis. Would you let BLM use your lawn to protest from if they asked? If you wouldn't, you are a hypocrite.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Google goes a long, long way to protect freedom of speech. Far further than most companies.
That blog that started GamerGate is still up on Blogger (owned by Google). They didn't take it down, even though it's a vile personal attack that lead to years of harassment and abuse. They didn't de-list Daily Stormer or any other hate filled site that didn't break the law from their search engine.
But that site violates their terms of service. Look how much shit Twitter gets for not ruthlessly applying the letter of the ToS immediately and absolutely to every tweet. Now Google does it to a right wing site and they are the worst censors in history.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC