You may oppose them, but the two Civil Rights Acts were critical to African-Americans in many states gaining democratic and economic rights. You're sitting fifty years after these laws started doing their work claiming they were unnecessary, but the fact was that from the Reconstruction Period for nearly a century afterwards the dominant white society in the former slave states used every legal and illegal means at their disposal to maintain control over African-Americans, and it was only when the Federal Government used Civil Rights laws to strike at the heart of the Jim Crow era.
Now we can debate whether cake bakers who don't want to write "Adam and Steve" on wedding cakes are in the same class as shopkeepers in Tennessee who refused to serve African-Americans. I'm a little more uncomfortable with the idea of forcing someone to actually write a message on a cake, and I think there is a line there, but it's a complex question, and not one that can simply be handwaved away with yet another magical invocation to the Invisible Hand. For a hundred years a dollar in an African-American's hands was worth the same as a dollar in a white American's, and yet it did not buy African-Americans the same level of freedom as a white American in many parts of the United States.
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.
I don't think a hosting site or registrar terminating their relationship with you creates any kind of martyr. The Daily Stormer has found other hosting services, so all that's really happened is that Google and GoDaddy have washed their hands of these evil bastards. It's not about silencing the racists, it's about not promoting their message, even inadvertently.
Wow! They got a new registrar and a hosting company. What a brilliant group of tacticians they are.
Frankly, I preferred the days when the Neo-Nazis and White supremacists had to rely on cheaply mimeographed pamphlets mailed in dull brown envelopes, and where being a racist fascist who hated Jews, blacks, Catholics, communists, Democrats and Latinos was something you did normally hide, and where courage came from wearing a pointed hood along with a dozen other of your like-minded mates burning crosses on your enemies' lawns. Yes, it was frightening, but at least the Internet wasn't there to give the mirage of social acceptability.
Fortunately, other than the President's tepid response, the response of most political leaders has been one of condemnation, and not equivocation and trying to draw false equivalency with BLM and Antifa.
So comments on stories are now the official position of organizations? I'm asking for the official mission statements, press releases or public comments of groups like Black Lives Matter, not some hotheads who post to a news site's comment section, along side Facebook spam about mom's who earning $2000 a week by posting ads from home.
The amount of effort being put into trying to justify the Neo-nazis and white supremacists through equivocation astounds me. I'm not saying there aren't far left groups who don't advocate violence, but come on. At what point do you admit that what happened Charlottesville can't just be handwaved away because some left wing assholes spout off on Reddit?
Yes, I'm sure there all kinds of posts. But that's not really the same thing as an official declaration from one of the organizations you're claiming are as bad as the White Supremacist organizations declaring "Shoot Trump!"
And really, there was a time within the memory of some still living when saying nasty things about Fascists was hardly scandalous. You may have heard of a little dustup where some fascist states ended up being bombed into near oblivion by people proudly declaring that they were going to get the Fascists.
When exactly did fascism and Nazism suddenly become so endearing that for someone to say "I want to punch a Fascist" is seen as the equivalent of some far right goon committing murder and attempted murder with a car? Just how far are you willing to take your equivocation because "oh them thar dirty left wingers are so mean to my people..."?
Even Trump has finally openly condemned the Nazis, so I think you can put away your whole "but but BLM is so baaaaadddddd!"
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.
That's a lovely myth you got going there. Not one backed up by evidence, but I guess if you're job is to try to argue a Neo-nazi didn't kill someone and try to kill several others, well, good for you. You've picked your side.
Well Trump has finally called out the white supremacists. I have a feeling that a lot of this has a lot to do with General Kelly, and with a diminished of Steve Bannon. I expect Bannon to be out soon enough, and maybe, just maybe, Trump may actually surround himself with a few better angels. One thing is for certain, he can't win 2020 with the Alt-right, there just isn't enough of them, and now that they're brethren in the white supremacist movement have (for the billionth time) been outed for the evil monsters they are, he's going to have to try to appeal again to Middle America with something approaching a moderate message.
The entire purpose of attacking BLM and Antifa is to create a false moral equivalency so the Neo-nazis don't look so bad. "Oh yes, they're violent, but yeah no, some BLM guys shouted on TV, so it's like totally the same."
Even Trump has finally quite the equivocation of the last two days and called this particular evil by its name, so at least he's given his Alt-right followers permission to call out white supremacists without trying to make claims about BLM and other similar movements.
Net neutrality is about prioritizing of data based on type. In other words, it is an issue of ISPs, not an issue of web sites. To imagine that any regulation requires a content provider being forced to host Storm Front, that's absurd, and not at all what net neutrality is about.
I actually do feel the same about the cake bakers, and find forcing anyone to write a message on a cake that they disagree with wrong.
But really, that's simply more equivocation. As shitty as treating bakers badly with well-intentioned by ill-begotten equality laws is bad, having the President of the United States too frightened to call out a pack of Nazis is a whole other thing entirely. But i get it, you need to feel like somehow a metaphorical stubbed toe is the same as a literal car attack.
Well, either he's a Nazi himself, or one of those pathetic alt-right types desperate to try to blame someone else for some repugnant Neo-nazi driving into a crowd of anti-Nazi protesters. Their champion, the current occupant of the Oval Office, is of similar mind, because he couldn't even bring himself to condemn a pack of evil White Supremacists. Just think about that, the President of the United States, the so-called "Leader of the Free World" is so afraid of angering his base that his direct utterances are basically exercises in moral equivalency, and it is left to others in his administration to insist that that represents an actual condemnation.
The United States has a immoral coward as its leader, but that's alright, since it appears his supporters are equally immoral and cowardly.
And let the equivocation begin! Oh, those poor downtrodden Neo-nazis and White Supremacists. All they want to do is expel every black person, Latino, and anyone else in their long laundry list of people they hate.
Storm Front has the right to say what it wants. It has absolutely no right to force anyone else to carry the message for them.
They'll just pay him some money to get rid of any potential legal hazard. He'll get a big fat check, but good luck working at any of the big IT firms again.
I'm a little uncomfortable with comparing MLK and Rosa Parks to a guy who thinks women, statistically-speaking, are on average less able to work in IT.
If he's in defiance of a court order, then yes, an arrest warrant is a real possibility. Now maybe he plans an appeal, and I suppose he can seek an injunction against opening the gate pending that appeal, but since, on the face of it, he's acting in violation of California law, it's unlikely he'd get his injunction, and it's unlikely an appeal would be successful. So sooner or later, he opens that gate, or he ends up in a jail cell. It's his choice.
Slashdot Mirror
You may oppose them, but the two Civil Rights Acts were critical to African-Americans in many states gaining democratic and economic rights. You're sitting fifty years after these laws started doing their work claiming they were unnecessary, but the fact was that from the Reconstruction Period for nearly a century afterwards the dominant white society in the former slave states used every legal and illegal means at their disposal to maintain control over African-Americans, and it was only when the Federal Government used Civil Rights laws to strike at the heart of the Jim Crow era.
Now we can debate whether cake bakers who don't want to write "Adam and Steve" on wedding cakes are in the same class as shopkeepers in Tennessee who refused to serve African-Americans. I'm a little more uncomfortable with the idea of forcing someone to actually write a message on a cake, and I think there is a line there, but it's a complex question, and not one that can simply be handwaved away with yet another magical invocation to the Invisible Hand. For a hundred years a dollar in an African-American's hands was worth the same as a dollar in a white American's, and yet it did not buy African-Americans the same level of freedom as a white American in many parts of the United States.
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.
I don't think a hosting site or registrar terminating their relationship with you creates any kind of martyr. The Daily Stormer has found other hosting services, so all that's really happened is that Google and GoDaddy have washed their hands of these evil bastards. It's not about silencing the racists, it's about not promoting their message, even inadvertently.
Wow! They got a new registrar and a hosting company. What a brilliant group of tacticians they are.
Frankly, I preferred the days when the Neo-Nazis and White supremacists had to rely on cheaply mimeographed pamphlets mailed in dull brown envelopes, and where being a racist fascist who hated Jews, blacks, Catholics, communists, Democrats and Latinos was something you did normally hide, and where courage came from wearing a pointed hood along with a dozen other of your like-minded mates burning crosses on your enemies' lawns. Yes, it was frightening, but at least the Internet wasn't there to give the mirage of social acceptability.
Fortunately, other than the President's tepid response, the response of most political leaders has been one of condemnation, and not equivocation and trying to draw false equivalency with BLM and Antifa.
So comments on stories are now the official position of organizations? I'm asking for the official mission statements, press releases or public comments of groups like Black Lives Matter, not some hotheads who post to a news site's comment section, along side Facebook spam about mom's who earning $2000 a week by posting ads from home.
The amount of effort being put into trying to justify the Neo-nazis and white supremacists through equivocation astounds me. I'm not saying there aren't far left groups who don't advocate violence, but come on. At what point do you admit that what happened Charlottesville can't just be handwaved away because some left wing assholes spout off on Reddit?
Yes, I'm sure there all kinds of posts. But that's not really the same thing as an official declaration from one of the organizations you're claiming are as bad as the White Supremacist organizations declaring "Shoot Trump!"
And really, there was a time within the memory of some still living when saying nasty things about Fascists was hardly scandalous. You may have heard of a little dustup where some fascist states ended up being bombed into near oblivion by people proudly declaring that they were going to get the Fascists.
When exactly did fascism and Nazism suddenly become so endearing that for someone to say "I want to punch a Fascist" is seen as the equivalent of some far right goon committing murder and attempted murder with a car? Just how far are you willing to take your equivocation because "oh them thar dirty left wingers are so mean to my people..."?
Even Trump has finally openly condemned the Nazis, so I think you can put away your whole "but but BLM is so baaaaadddddd!"
You could provide some examples of how these sites are encouraging violence and murder.
Because BLM isn't evil. Your attempt at moral equivalency is noted.
Using legal means to reduce the exposure of White Supremacist groups is moral.
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.
That's a lovely myth you got going there. Not one backed up by evidence, but I guess if you're job is to try to argue a Neo-nazi didn't kill someone and try to kill several others, well, good for you. You've picked your side.
Well Trump has finally called out the white supremacists. I have a feeling that a lot of this has a lot to do with General Kelly, and with a diminished of Steve Bannon. I expect Bannon to be out soon enough, and maybe, just maybe, Trump may actually surround himself with a few better angels. One thing is for certain, he can't win 2020 with the Alt-right, there just isn't enough of them, and now that they're brethren in the white supremacist movement have (for the billionth time) been outed for the evil monsters they are, he's going to have to try to appeal again to Middle America with something approaching a moderate message.
The entire purpose of attacking BLM and Antifa is to create a false moral equivalency so the Neo-nazis don't look so bad. "Oh yes, they're violent, but yeah no, some BLM guys shouted on TV, so it's like totally the same."
Even Trump has finally quite the equivocation of the last two days and called this particular evil by its name, so at least he's given his Alt-right followers permission to call out white supremacists without trying to make claims about BLM and other similar movements.
I'm sure Storm Front would have no problem getting a Russian hosting service to host their website.
Net neutrality is about prioritizing of data based on type. In other words, it is an issue of ISPs, not an issue of web sites. To imagine that any regulation requires a content provider being forced to host Storm Front, that's absurd, and not at all what net neutrality is about.
I actually do feel the same about the cake bakers, and find forcing anyone to write a message on a cake that they disagree with wrong.
But really, that's simply more equivocation. As shitty as treating bakers badly with well-intentioned by ill-begotten equality laws is bad, having the President of the United States too frightened to call out a pack of Nazis is a whole other thing entirely. But i get it, you need to feel like somehow a metaphorical stubbed toe is the same as a literal car attack.
There sure is a lot of bullshit being spread about this attack.
I'll keep that in mind the next time Islamists attack, and see the likes of you with your moral outrage hanging out.
Well, either he's a Nazi himself, or one of those pathetic alt-right types desperate to try to blame someone else for some repugnant Neo-nazi driving into a crowd of anti-Nazi protesters. Their champion, the current occupant of the Oval Office, is of similar mind, because he couldn't even bring himself to condemn a pack of evil White Supremacists. Just think about that, the President of the United States, the so-called "Leader of the Free World" is so afraid of angering his base that his direct utterances are basically exercises in moral equivalency, and it is left to others in his administration to insist that that represents an actual condemnation.
The United States has a immoral coward as its leader, but that's alright, since it appears his supporters are equally immoral and cowardly.
And let the equivocation begin! Oh, those poor downtrodden Neo-nazis and White Supremacists. All they want to do is expel every black person, Latino, and anyone else in their long laundry list of people they hate.
Storm Front has the right to say what it wants. It has absolutely no right to force anyone else to carry the message for them.
And where did the FBI say that?
Jessica Jones was good, but the rest are middling at best.
They'll just pay him some money to get rid of any potential legal hazard. He'll get a big fat check, but good luck working at any of the big IT firms again.
Getting hired by Yahoo these days is like being appointed Minister of Finance in the Flensburg Government.
I'm a little uncomfortable with comparing MLK and Rosa Parks to a guy who thinks women, statistically-speaking, are on average less able to work in IT.
If he's in defiance of a court order, then yes, an arrest warrant is a real possibility. Now maybe he plans an appeal, and I suppose he can seek an injunction against opening the gate pending that appeal, but since, on the face of it, he's acting in violation of California law, it's unlikely he'd get his injunction, and it's unlikely an appeal would be successful. So sooner or later, he opens that gate, or he ends up in a jail cell. It's his choice.