Whenever you see someone play an clip of just a short segment they are likely trying to fool you, and you were fooled.
The car was traveling at a high rate of speed prior to someone taking a bat to the car. The video was edited to remove the portion more than a fraction of a second prior to the vehicle being struck and the video was slowed down and then sped back up after the strike.
They also showed and even shorter clip where the car passes by the photographer and a bicycle is in the background. In that one you can see the considerable distance the car travels compared to how far the bicycle traveled. This is with a clear view of a completely blocked street of protestors marching towards the vehicle. Why would an avowed neo-Nazi even be on that street in his car in the first place, much less driving towards a crowd of protesters? He had other side streets he could easily have turned off onto but instead continued towards the crowd.
The obvious answer is the correct answer, despite the many apologists who have come up with a variety of alternative facts and doctored, misleading video clips as well.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Clearly you don't understand the difference between violations of Google's Terms and Conditions, which they can enforce as they choose, and being responsible for content. Or maybe you think there isn't a difference.
You may belong to a class of people who are loud and profane but society sees no reason to protect you from being discriminated against by a business that has no interest in loud and profane people from engaging in loud, profane behaviors.
Which still wouldn't be sufficient to prevent Go Daddy from refusing to provide them services for reasons that have nothing to do with their religion. You are free to go create the Church of Sex with Babies but that won't get you a free pass from hosting a website promoting child pornography, which is a violation of Go Daddy's terms of service.
They were tossed for a violation of Go Daddy's Terms of Service which, among other things, prohibits:
"Promotes, encourages or engages in terrorism, violence against people, animals, or property;"
Equating a bakery that discriminates against people who are gay with a website that "promotes, encourages or engages in terrorism, violence against people, animals, or property" is faulty reasoning.
You neighborhood bakery is perfectly free to refuse to bake a cake for neo-Nazi's that want it to have a picture of a black figure hanging from a tree.
The violation of the terms of service had nothing to do with:
"obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security"
Therefore it wasn't censorship by your definition and further the website was not "prohibited" or even suppressed as Go Daddy was hosting it. Go Daddy merely told them to find someone else to provide their domain name services. The website is up right now so it clearly hasn't been prohibited or suppressed.
If your local theater won't screen your obscene movie, go find another theatre. Private businesses that don't want to be associated with some things aren't censoring, they are simply making business decisions. You don't get to say whatever you want in my home, but if you step off my property you can say pretty much whatever you want. I'm not censoring you, I'm telling you to go elsewhere to say what I find unacceptable in my home.
Go Daddy refused service because their terms of service was violated. Their terms of service violation wasn't based on the race, sex, gender or sexual preference.
Bakers make cakes, they are perfectly free to refuse to make cakes the have wording on them that promote illegal activities or encourage violence. They don't have to make a cake for an antifa group where the cake says "Punch a Nazi in the face". But they don't get to refuse to make cakes for black people because the baker doesn't like black people. The barber next door doesn't get to have a sign on his door saying "NO CHRISTIANS" either.
Trying to get away from something? He accelerated down a long, mostly empty street before plowing into the other vehicle/crowd. If you want to get away from somebody you turn down one of the side streets he passed before crashing into a CROWD of people.
You must have been watching a completely different video. 6 people chasing him with bats? You could see him looking in his rear view mirror and actually could discern expressions on his face? People did chase him as he started roaring past them TOWARDS a crowd of people that completely blocked the street ahead. He didn't turn onto a side street, he didn't back up until after he killed and maimed. Then he was perfectly able to back up and escape. But in your mind he had no choice but to drive down a mostly empty street and plow into a crowd of people out of fear.
You're part of the problem because you clearly actually believe what you wrote.
Slashdot Mirror
Whenever you see someone play an clip of just a short segment they are likely trying to fool you, and you were fooled.
The car was traveling at a high rate of speed prior to someone taking a bat to the car. The video was edited to remove the portion more than a fraction of a second prior to the vehicle being struck and the video was slowed down and then sped back up after the strike.
They also showed and even shorter clip where the car passes by the photographer and a bicycle is in the background. In that one you can see the considerable distance the car travels compared to how far the bicycle traveled. This is with a clear view of a completely blocked street of protestors marching towards the vehicle. Why would an avowed neo-Nazi even be on that street in his car in the first place, much less driving towards a crowd of protesters? He had other side streets he could easily have turned off onto but instead continued towards the crowd.
The obvious answer is the correct answer, despite the many apologists who have come up with a variety of alternative facts and doctored, misleading video clips as well.
Is that because you can't use the Tor network to view the site?
Good job, yourself.
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.
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.
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.
Such a rigid, incorrect, definition.
The part after Lenin properly describes many right wing groups, including the neo-Nazis and radical Islamists.
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?
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?
There is nothing dangerous about recognizing the Daily Stormer as a website that promotes violence and extremism
Good for Google
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.
Clearly you don't understand the difference between violations of Google's Terms and Conditions, which they can enforce as they choose, and being responsible for content. Or maybe you think there isn't a difference.
Go Daddy isn't hosting their website
Gay people are different, so are left handed people and people born with no arms.
You need to get over your irrational hatred.
Because not all classes deserve protection.
You may belong to a class of people who are loud and profane but society sees no reason to protect you from being discriminated against by a business that has no interest in loud and profane people from engaging in loud, profane behaviors.
Which still wouldn't be sufficient to prevent Go Daddy from refusing to provide them services for reasons that have nothing to do with their religion. You are free to go create the Church of Sex with Babies but that won't get you a free pass from hosting a website promoting child pornography, which is a violation of Go Daddy's terms of service.
They were tossed for a violation of Go Daddy's Terms of Service which, among other things, prohibits:
"Promotes, encourages or engages in terrorism, violence against people, animals, or property;"
Equating a bakery that discriminates against people who are gay with a website that "promotes, encourages or engages in terrorism, violence against people, animals, or property" is faulty reasoning.
You neighborhood bakery is perfectly free to refuse to bake a cake for neo-Nazi's that want it to have a picture of a black figure hanging from a tree.
The violation of the terms of service had nothing to do with:
"obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security"
Therefore it wasn't censorship by your definition and further the website was not "prohibited" or even suppressed as Go Daddy was hosting it. Go Daddy merely told them to find someone else to provide their domain name services. The website is up right now so it clearly hasn't been prohibited or suppressed.
If your local theater won't screen your obscene movie, go find another theatre. Private businesses that don't want to be associated with some things aren't censoring, they are simply making business decisions. You don't get to say whatever you want in my home, but if you step off my property you can say pretty much whatever you want. I'm not censoring you, I'm telling you to go elsewhere to say what I find unacceptable in my home.
People who go to neo-nazi websites aren't looking for the truth.
Most people complaining about "MSM lies" aren't looking for the truth either.
Go Daddy refused service because their terms of service was violated. Their terms of service violation wasn't based on the race, sex, gender or sexual preference.
Bakers make cakes, they are perfectly free to refuse to make cakes the have wording on them that promote illegal activities or encourage violence. They don't have to make a cake for an antifa group where the cake says "Punch a Nazi in the face". But they don't get to refuse to make cakes for black people because the baker doesn't like black people. The barber next door doesn't get to have a sign on his door saying "NO CHRISTIANS" either.
Go Daddy doesn't deny people name services for being Nazi's.
Try to understand why Go Daddy canceled their service.
AT&T has terms of service also and they can cancel phone service for violating it, whether the violator is a Nazi or the Girl Scouts of America.
Hopefully everyone else will make them equally glad.
BTW, Go Daddy didn't host their website.
Indeed you can, because Jedi never existed and don't exist.
Nazi's did and do. Those who dress up as Nazi's aren't just having some cosplay fun.
Trying to get away from something? He accelerated down a long, mostly empty street before plowing into the other vehicle/crowd. If you want to get away from somebody you turn down one of the side streets he passed before crashing into a CROWD of people.
You must have been watching a completely different video. 6 people chasing him with bats? You could see him looking in his rear view mirror and actually could discern expressions on his face? People did chase him as he started roaring past them TOWARDS a crowd of people that completely blocked the street ahead. He didn't turn onto a side street, he didn't back up until after he killed and maimed. Then he was perfectly able to back up and escape. But in your mind he had no choice but to drive down a mostly empty street and plow into a crowd of people out of fear.
You're part of the problem because you clearly actually believe what you wrote.
If anti-abortion activists are encouraging violence or terrorism then I do hope Go Daddy would give them the boot too.
Pizza parlors refusing to cater to gays isn't a violation of Go Daddy's Terms of Service. So try sticking to a hypothetical that applies.
Go Daddy doesn't host their website.
24 hours to move a site? Why not take the time to read the article.
Go Daddy doesn't host their site, they only provide the domain name registration.
Moving that is trivial.