GoDaddy Expels Neo-Nazi Site Over Article On Charlottesville Victim (bbc.co.uk) 936
Reader Big Hairy Ian writes: Web hosting company GoDaddy has given a US neo-Nazi site 24 hours to find another provider after it disparaged a woman who died in protests in Virginia. The Daily Stormer published a piece denigrating Heather Heyer, who was killed on Saturday after a car rammed into a crowd protesting at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville. GoDaddy had faced calls to remove the white supremacist site as a result. The web host said the Daily Stormer had violated its terms of service. "We informed the Daily Stormer that they have 24 hours to move the domain to another provider, as they have violated our terms of service," GoDaddy said in a statement on Twitter. Previously, some web users had called on GoDaddy to remove the site -- including women's rights campaigner Amy Siskind. Violence broke out in Charlottesville, Virginia, after white supremacists organised a controversial far-right march called "Unite the Right".
And before anyone starts (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't a First Amendment issue.
GoDaddy has the right to toss anyone off of their service for violating their Terms of Service.
Re:And before anyone starts (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. GoDaddy is a private corporation. They're not bound by the 1st Ammendment.
However, GoDaddy is full of crap. They claim that the web site violated their TOS by inciting violence, but the only thing that this clown posted there was calling the victim fat, childless, and useless. He was obviously a jerk-off, but he was not calling for violence.
GoDaddy was simply cowed by the SJWs, that's all. They aren't the first, they won't be the last, and this is simply a useful information to know: GoDaddy can be pressured and harassed into shutting down an unpopular web site that they host. Someone who believes that their content maybe controversial and unpopular, and may be targeted by left-wing rent-a-mobs, should not host it on GoDaddy.
No it is a censorship issue (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No it is a censorship issue (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No one is debating whether they have the right, you fucking autist. We're debating whether they should. Why do liberals always try to reframe the discussion?
Why do alt-righters immediately have to devolve discussions into violence and hostility?
Re:And before anyone starts (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, when you're a business of public accommodation, you cannot legally discriminate against a protected class. If the bakery had been booked solid and unable to produce the wedding cake in time for the wedding, it wouldn't be discrimination. If it simple wasn't a service they offered, it wouldn't be discrimination.
But by refusing to offer services based on sexual orientation, which is a protected class in Colorado, they violated the law.
Re: (Score:3)
Which merely proves that the concept of "protected classes" is fundamentally incompatible with freedom of speech.
Re:And before anyone starts (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that many of the rights we enjoy and that are enshrined in the Constitution are fundamentally incompatible with each other. Pretty much every right can be exercised in a way that infringes on a different right.
Given that, it is the proper role of government to try to establish a balance of sorts, so that when rights clash against each other, there is some established set of rules by which you can determine who wins.
All such rules are, of course, compromises and restrict rights. There's really no way around that. So you want to have the fewest such rules as possible -- but some such rules are mandatory.
The "protected classes" thing is one such compromise.
Re: (Score:3)
If the grocers could decide not to sell food to people that were left handed, say, then it'd be functionally starving them out.
Under the law right now, grocers (or any other business) could totally do this. Handedness is not a protected class.
Of course, if too many grocers started doing this, then it might become a protected class.
Re:And before anyone starts (Score:5, Informative)
They are. And if the Daily Stormer can prove that they lost hosting services on GoDaddy due to them being in a protected class, then that would legally be discrimination.
But if they lost it due to violating GoDaddy's Terms of Service, then that's a different kettle of fish.
Good luck finding a lawyer to take on that case.
Re:And before anyone starts (Score:5, Informative)
GoDaddy is not a business that offers services to the public?
Fascist/rascist is a protected class?
Re:And before anyone starts (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, political affiliation is considered one of the protected attributes. So there is a narrow argument could be made that this is discrimination on the basis of a political affiliation (that being with a white suprematist moment).
That's a very narrow argument, because they weren't kicked out because of any affiliation, but because of their actions. It was their actions that violated the TOS, not their beliefs.
I would much rather their arguments be calmly refuted.
Yeah, they would rather you do that too, it's easier for them to walk all over you if you just remain calm and try to reason with them. The guy driving the Challenger [youtube.com] probably loves calm, rational debate. Start with him, sit down and have a nice chat.
Re: (Score:3)
GoDaddy is not a business that offers services to the public?
Reading comprehension fail, unless you think being a Neo-Nazi is a protected class.
Re: (Score:3)
"Protected" class means "protected under this particular law". So "not in a protected class" doesn't mean "not protected by any law."
Now as for "a business should not be allowed to discriminate period," I agree. However such a law would be *much* more burdensome.
Every law has undesirable consequences, for example any law which allows you to sue someone else means companies and people get slapped with spurious lawsuits. This is true for anti-discrimination laws too; not every accusation is justified. Maki
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
By default, no class was protected. But then we noticed some classes needed protection, because they were being treated like shit by people like you. Because as a society, we're not heartless animals, we created legal constructs such as protected classes to help those people.
No classes are protected in humanity's "default state" because classes don't exist. We define them, and we decide who needs protecting. It's all so complicated to stupid people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Do they have the right to toss muslims off their service?
Read up on what protected classes are and when they apply.
How about telling it like it is? (Score:4, Insightful)
after white supremacists organised a controversial far-right march called "Unite the Right".
Re:How about telling it like it is? (Score:5, Interesting)
So those guys displaying swastikas, giving Nazi salutes, chanting "blood and soil", one wearing a t-shirt that said "Nazi" on it... Those guys weren't Nazis?
It wasn't a small group or one or two people, it was large numbers of them and the others there did nothing to stop it, didn't ask them to leave and didn't leave themselves when the chanting started.
It was organised by nationalists, including the ex-Grand Wizard of the KKK. But those are two sides of the same coin.
No need to be pedantic about the exact terminology. You had Nazis marching in your streets, not even bothering to cover their faces any more.
Re:How about telling it like it is? (Score:5, Interesting)
So those guys displaying swastikas, giving Nazi salutes, chanting "blood and soil", one wearing a t-shirt that said "Nazi" on it... Those guys weren't Nazis?
Well that's a good question now isn't it? Because the person who put this thing together(UTR) goes by the name of Jason Kessler. Who right up until November 2016, was an avowed leftist, democrat supporter, proud obama supporter, and so on. We'll use the SLPC's own database on that. [splcenter.org] And he suddenly established a new organization called "Unity & Security For America" in January of 2017. Now one can't forget either that he was working for CNN at one point. [cnn.com]
Now you can ask what does this have to do with anything. Well it's starting to smell a lot like "bird dogging" something that democrats did several times during the RNC primaries, and during the 2016 presidential race. This is right out of the playbooks of Scott Foval and Bob Creamer, who were pushed out of the DNC when it came to light that they had been paying protesters to be violent at rallies. The most famous case of this was the near-riot in Chicago.
Now go read these two articles here [nbc29.com] and this article here. [nbc29.com] Then ask yourself why this organization's event(UTR) was announced on the facebook page of the Traditionalist Workers Party. Sounds very right-wing to me, doesn't it comrade. That's the same organization with ties to Yvette Felarca(of By Any Means Necessary or BAMN fame), who was arrested in relation to starting a riot....in California. I'll let you guess which one.
And now, we go off to the races. I'll say, there's a chance, a possibility that a devout democrat that deep could flip and support Trump. I've met them, the other stuff just doesn't seem to match up on the other hand. Especially the announcements.
Re:How about telling it like it is? (Score:4, Informative)
Interesting conspiracy theory. Are you claiming that all the protesters were paid to pretend to be Nazis and nationalist and KKK members, or just the Nazis and the others were genuine nationalists and KKK members?
Who right up until November 2016, was an avowed leftist, democrat supporter, proud obama supporter, and so on.
From the SLPC link you posted, but apparently didn't read:
"Kessler himself has placed his "red-pilling" around December of 2013 when a PR executive was publicly excoriated for a tasteless Twitter joke about AIDS in Africa."
By the way, working for CNN doesn't make you a leftist.
Traditionalist Workers Party. Sounds very right-wing to me
By the way, have to actually looked at the Traditionalist Workers Party Facebook page? It seems to be full of fake news and some distinctly Nazi/nationalist looking imagery. [archive.is] It actually does sound very right wing to me too, now you mention it.
Re: (Score:3)
People who are nuts don't operate on the same logic sane people use.
Re: (Score:2)
after white supremacists organised a controversial far-right march called "Unite the Right".
Glad to see I wasn't the only one that thought of mid 1930s Germany when they saw pictures of hundreds of young men marching around in (citronella tiki) torches.
As a side note, they could at least have put in the effort to make real torches. All you need is a stick, a rag, gasoline/kerosene, and some wire. Using the tiki torches takes them from intimidating (which I am sure they were going for) to comical. Maybe they were worried about bugs during the rally?
Re:How about telling it like it is? (Score:5, Funny)
"As a side note, they could at least have put in the effort to make real torches. All you need is a stick, a rag, gasoline/kerosene, and some wire."
And these are the guys complaining about manufacturing jobs.
Re:How about telling it like it is? (Score:4, Insightful)
They also complain about anti white rhetoric that is fashionable and accepted today.
There is a video of them marching chanting "You will not replace us." while the other side chanted "anti-white". You get cheers when people state the fact that the US will be majority non white. When you have politicians like Sally Brown saying her job is to shut white people down. When you have Twitter allow calls for white genocide. It's easy to see why there are so many white supremacists coming out of the wood work. Because it's accepted to be racist against white and it looks coordinated from politicians, media, and activists.
I honestly don't give a shit but the hypocrisy is palpable. All forms of hatred should not be encouraged.
Re:How about telling it like it is? (Score:5, Interesting)
Glad to see I wasn't the only one that thought of mid 1930s Germany when they saw pictures of hundreds of young men marching around in (citronella tiki) torches.
Yeah I thought the same thing, you know what it reminded me of? When the nazi's started fighting back against the antifascists(aka antifaschistische aktion) [wikipedia.org] who were violently assaulting people in the streets, at protests and so on.
You do realize that that article you linked to states that Antifaschistische Aktion formed in 1932, nearly a decade after the Beer Hall Putsch? The AA might have been a continuation of the RFB, but even the RFB was formed in 1924. The SA/Brownshirts were formed in 1920/21. Hard to paint antifascist groups as the violent aggressors with a timeline like that.
Re:How about telling it like it is? (Score:5, Informative)
Nazis, aka National -Socialists-, are NOT far right.
They are of the Left. Perhaps right of communism
That's one of the greatest cons ever. They adopted socialist policies to gain popularity - typical demagogue stuff, promise to bring all the jobs back, blame all the problems on some identifiable group (the Jews) etc. Once they got into power they forgot all that stuff and enacted far right policies, which was their intention all along, and forgot about the socialist stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
Nazis, aka National -Socialists-, are NOT far right.
They are of the Left. Perhaps right of communism
That's one of the greatest cons ever. They adopted socialist policies to gain popularity - typical demagogue stuff, promise to bring all the jobs back, blame all the problems on some identifiable group (the Jews) etc. Once they got into power they forgot all that stuff and enacted far right policies, which was their intention all along, and forgot about the socialist stuff.
Pretty sure nationalizing various parts of the economy, threatening to nationalize others unless they towed the line, destroying individual freedoms, disregard for life, lack of property ownership, eugenics, etc, are NOT policies of the right. Those are all statist corner stones of the left.
Re:How about telling it like it is? (Score:5, Insightful)
In Europe, ideas like disregard for human rights, xenophobia, promoting individualism, building up the military etc are policies of the right.
The right also tends to be more religious, and wants to force its ideas of morality on to people. For example, by opposing abortion and rejecting anything but a narrow, religiously defined concept of marriage. The right seeks to limit some freedoms too, just different ones to the left.
And speaking of freedom, Europe has a different concept of what freedom is to the US. In the US it's very much focused on freedom from interference by the government, so even if you are rotting in the gutter you are still freer than a European who is given shelter and medical care by the government. In Europe, freedom isn't just freedom from limitations, it's freedom to live some kind of bearable, not-terrible life, even if that does create a small burden on you when your life isn't so bad.
Re:How about telling it like it is? (Score:4, Insightful)
The explicit name of the event was "Unite the Right". Give it up. You may wish that "left" meant "government power" and "right" meant "individual freedoms", but it just doesn't, today. Although, if you're going to insist that a group that named itself "alt-right" is on the left, you've got your mind made up.
Re: (Score:3)
I was about to ridicule this, but then I realized, what are the two things Trump refuses to criticize?
That's right, former KGB agent Vladimir Putin, and white supremacists. Trump supports both Communists and Nazis. And how could that be possible if they weren't both the same?
And who supports Trump? The Republican Party. Oh, sure, sometimes a few of its members will make a token criticism when Trump says something particularly stupid, but on the whole they've been smoking what he's selling.
So while the Democ
Re: (Score:3)
Any gathering displaying the regalia of Nazism is not peaceful by default.
Hmm, not peaceful by default? Really? Would that be because displaying the swastika* is violence in itself, or because someone seeing the swastika displayed is automatically impelled to violence?
it is impossible to wave around Nazi symbols without inciting to violence.
Ah, I see, I think. The latter then. Respectfully, I'm going to have to disagree with you, and suggest that you're the one that has problems if someone waving a flag, no matter what symbols are displayed on it, is not only sufficient for you, but triggers you, to violence.
In short, fuck off and die, Nazi scum. We used to hang people like you.
Throughout history there have been plenty of
Re: (Score:3)
If the message is "I'm gonna kill you" you damn well lose your right to free speech. There is no jurisdiction on Earth, not even the benighted United States, where outright incitement to murder is tolerated. And that is what Nazism is. Period, end of discussion. We fought a World War and held the Nuremberg Trials to establish this, it is incumbent on you Nazi apologists to demonstrate why the Nazis were right and the Trials were wrong.
Can godaddy get sued discrimination / censorship? (Score:3)
Can godaddy get sued discrimination / censorship?
Now what if they banned votetrump.com ?
Or banned an anti H1B website ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what about discrimination laws?
Let's say EA does not like an website talking about poor working conditions??
Or say jay's hosting cuts off a site talking about how bad that 80 hour work weeks are at jay's hosting!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
> what about discrimination laws?
To which nazi-protection law are you referring? I'm unaware of it.
Before you say "First Amendment," I'll point out that that response would make you an idiot.
Re:Can godaddy get sued discrimination / censorshi (Score:5, Interesting)
what about discrimination laws?
What about them?
All businesses are free to discriminate against people for any reason whatsoever, unless the reason is on the short list of protected classes (age, gender, religion, etc.)
A business can refuse you service just because they don't like the clothes you wear, the car you drive, your hair color, or even just because they're in a bad mood.
Blues Bros (Score:3)
Re:Blues Bros (Score:4, Insightful)
There have always been Nazis or Nazi-like groups in the US. One of the reasons it took so long for us to directly enter WWII was the large quantity of Nazi sympathizers in the US.
It's an attractive worldview for some of the downtrodden, because it makes your crappy life the fault of other people and grants you permission to hate and attack those other people. For those of not-modest means, it can be the justification for why you are so well off, and again grants you permission to hate.
And now Godaddy owns... (Score:5, Insightful)
...every bit of content they are part of serving.
This kind of short-term virtue signaling on the part of a corporation is going to have long-term consequences, when people use this precedent to make them responsible for every shitlord post ever made on anything they're connected to.
Next thing you know, they'll be coming after GoDaddy for comments on articles, and naughty memes.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
They have rules and any site that violates them are subject to them. Supporting violence should certainly get anyone booted.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They have rules and any site that violates them are subject to them. Supporting violence should certainly get anyone booted.
Well, let's hope they apply the same rules to the self-styled "Antifa" facists.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realize that "Antifa" is an abbreviation for the German word for Anti-fascist, right?
Re: Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, and "DPRK" is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
What's ironic is they use fascist tactics. Beat everyone that opposes your viewpoint. They've been terrorizing every conservative event since the election. This is the first time they've actually run up against anyone as despicable as themselves.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
You clearly don't know what the word meant, ever.
Antifa has ALWAYS been violent, you can consider that a bad thing - they believe they are fighting against evil. And they were US allies in the war.
But what they are not is, in any way, subscribers to fascist ideology. Punching somebody is a far-cry from being a fascist, ESPECIALLY when you're punching fascists. Neither does censorship make you fascist. Nor even authoritarianism.
These are all things that fascists did - but they are not exclusive to fascism, not symptomatic of fascism, nor a requirement FOR fascism.
On the other hand the idea that a country or state should be dominated by a particular cuture or race - that IS a defining attribute of fascism. The original NAZIs were fascists as well. The Neo-NAZIs remain so. Richard Spencer is an absolute fascist. Dozens of people in Charlottesville were waviing signs with the fasces on it (a bunch of axes tied together) - literally the symbol of fascism and in fact, the origin of the word.
The word STILL means what it meant in 1929 and using it to mean whatever the fuck you want it to mean achieves only two things:
1) it makes YOU look like an uneducated idiot
2) It gives cover to actual fascists to continue posing a danger to the entire world.
Neither of these are good outcomes.
You may think AntiFa's violence is no longer justified, I would argue that this weekend proved otherwise - but to call them fascist is merely to prove you don't understand what fascism was or why it was evil. You associate some of the things that some fascists did with the concept and call all who do those things fascists - all you do is make the most evil people on the planet look less evil by claiming that less evil people are on par with them. By your reasoning every republican who ever banned porn is a fascist too. After all - fascists did censorship right ? Every dictator no matter if they were a communist or a far right capitalist is a fascist by your stupid definition - even though they would not agree on ANYTHING.
It's not some catch-all word that describes everybody from Pinochet to Stalin.
It describes a particular ideology - that of Musolini, Hitler and their modern incarnates. Nobody, NOBODY else qualifies. The most fascist leader in the world today is Donald Trump. He subscribes to the overwhelming majority of the fascist ideology. That and that ALONE can qualify anybody for the name. It's the name of a certain ideology - nothing else.
Re: Ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
I never said it wasn't coercion. But it can only be an act of STATISM if it's the STATE doing the punching.
And NEITHER of those things is fascism.
Fascism is NOT a word that means "statism" OR coercion. Those have FUCKALL to do with what the word means
Re: Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that he Antifa are 'statist', since they are pretty obviously antagonizing the police (the arm of the State). And they certainly are not facist, except in the obvious non-tolerance of other opinions. Facism requires more than that: a desire for a strong central authority (typically a government), and typically a focus on a homogenous group set apart from others.
Antifa have more in common with anarchists than facists.
Note that all three of these groups often feel that violence, sometimes even terrorism/mass killings, can be justified in advancing their political goals.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, well, now they're a terrorist group that campaigns against free speech and uses violence to silence anyone who opposes them. If you don't know this, you're seriously out of touch and you should stop talking about them like you know something relevant.
Re: Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
If this band of losers had called themselves "The Sons of Liberty" or some other organization or movement, you'd hardly suddenly support them because Samuel Adams did something 200 years ago under a similar name. The Patriot Act should have taught you how meaningless a name is.
"ANTIFA" are Fascists (Score:5, Informative)
And the Democratic Party was supporting slavery in the 19th century — and still had a KKK "Grand Wizard" among it Senators [wikipedia.org] until his recent death.
Whether it is "the same" or not, it is openly violent and favors the ever-increasing government control of the means of production. Which makes them very very Fascist [creators.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They are somehow worse than the people who turned up with guns, riot shields, "blood and soil" chants, swastikas, and then started murdering people?
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously. Just shut up.
Modern liberalism, everyone.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean bike lock. You have your head in the sand if you think it's only name calling at this point.
Re:Ridiculous, that we keep feeding the trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be a part of that. Ignore them, move on and leave them behind.
Yeah, because that worked so well in Germany in the 30s.
Re: (Score:3)
Attention is not their fuel. Hatred is their fuel. Ignoring them will not stop their hatred.
That same young and mutable you fear could just as easily think, "They must be OK because nobody's saying otherwise". Instead, the young and mutable need to see everyone saying "this is not acceptable".
Re:Ridiculous, that we keep feeding the trolls (Score:4, Interesting)
If they are unemployed, it's usually because they had been undercut by cheaper labor from South America, jobs have been offshored or that affirmative action policies block them from government and other public sector jobs. That in itself drives the racism.
There are those people in the USA and UK who think globalism and austerity measures are a good idea because it keeps prices down, or rather the overhead of wage demands down.
Re: (Score:3)
It's telling that the alt-right's narrative has shifted from "we are not bad guys" to "well everyone else is just as bad".
Re:The fact the Left are pussies assuredly won't l (Score:5, Informative)
They have been beating people up,
Because we have idiot politicians that tell the police to not intervene. Both in Berkeley and in Charlotesville. If the cops were allowed to keep the two groups separate and put down any violence before it erupts into a mob scene we wouldn't have this shit so common.
Re: (Score:3)
I could call myself Mary, Queen of Scots, but that doesn't make it so.
This pretty tiara and my massive land holdings, however, do.
What's my point? Anybody can name anything whatever they want, and it doesn't matter - what matters is the actions that are committed on behalf of the name.
Re: (Score:3)
More anger and childish name calling from the "tolerant" left. People like you are why HRC lost the election.
You are correct, people wanted mature and calm, that's why they voted Trump.
Selective outrage (Score:4, Insightful)
They do. But they are also the legislature (creating rules), judiciary (determining, whether a rule is broken), and executive (acting on such determination) at once. Whether their action is sincere, or simply seeking to avoid boycotts and/or DOSing, they are wrong.
I do hate Daily Stormer with passion — since 2014, when they dismissed all of Ukraine's figures as "Jews" — if GoDaddy was Ok with them before, there is no reason to kick them out now.
Certainly not with such haste... 24 hours to move a site? Ridiculous...
The massive outrage about this is curiously selective. The "alt-right" are blamed for the violence even though they held their gathering and were attacked by the counter-protesters [washingtonpost.com], who've been viciously violent before [theatlantic.com]. All of the reports about the car charging into a crowd mention "melees" and "skirmishes" already occurring prior to that in passing. Oh, that's because someone died? Well, there were politically-motivated attacks with a deadly weapon before [berkeleyside.com] — sheer luck, that asshole merely injured his victims.
Lastly, much as the Nazist symbols and racism annoy me, they clearly have no real following and thus pose little danger. Meanwhile, the symbols of Communists and other hate-groups (like Black Lives Matter) were also on display and those, despite being far deadlier, do not seem to outrage anyone...
What kind of idiots read slashdot now? (Score:2)
She's dead you brain dead plank and its the right wing site being expelled. Never mind following the news, you apparently can't even read 2 sentences properly.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)
Corporations should not have opinions on social matters.
Depends. GoDaddy is legally within its rights to refuse or continue (further) service. If the site calls for and supports continued violence, GoDaddy is (at least morally) obligated to report such calls to the relevant authorities and to discontinue service. You (or whoever you intended) could sue all you wanted, but it would go approximately nowhere, and it would further invite scrutiny and monitoring from the FBI (if you're in the US), or similar.
The only (slight) worry I have over this is that such sites will start burrowing into the Dark Web, where the general public cannot see and ridicule them for what they are. I can predict without looking that many of these sites are already there. Maybe that's a good thing - keep the bastards in the dark where they belong. But then, being able to easily point to something and show others "you can see what these chuckleheads actually believe right here (link)" is a good educational tool against folks who want to spread misinformation.
Re: (Score:3)
The barrier to entry for the dark web, low as it may be, is probably enough to deter a lot of people from bothering to regularly visit the site and become radicalized.
Re: (Score:3)
It is beyond time for the congress to move forward with impeachment.
While I'm not supporting Trump in any way shape or form, what impeachable offense has he committed? Unfortunately "being an idiot", "careless use of twitter", "stretching the truth", "denying science", etc. are not crimes in this country. And unfortunately impeaching because you don't like the guy and or his policy is not an option, nor should it be. Granted some of the stuff, like using his golf resorts, hotels, etc for official business, is pushing the line on self enrichment, I haven't heard any compe
Re: (Score:3)
I would sue GoDaddy with extreme prejudice if I was this lady.
If you were that lady you would be dead after being run over by a white supremacist, though you'd have one less neo-Nazi site disparaging your reputation online, so there's that small comfort.
Corporations are free to encourage or discourage a particular use of their services in order to try to ensure that their product ends up being what they want it to be. If you don't like what they're selling, vote with your wallet and go elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Corporations should not have opinions on social matters. I would sue GoDaddy with extreme prejudice if I was this lady. For one million or more.
Even so it sounds like a Bond Girl, "Daily Stormer" is not a lady.
Re: Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless they're literal Nazis.
I mean, come on. They're fucking Nazis for chrissake. If your business model relies on not alienating Nazis, then there may be bigger problems than your profit/loss statement.
Re: Ridiculous (Score:3)
As an aside I have a hard time calling them Nazis. The Nazis ran one of the most horrible and efficient genocide
Re: Ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
Really? It's what they call themselves.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DH... [twimg.com]
Re: Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
They're too weak (and unoriginal) to create their own original banner, so they rely on some idea of they past they've glorified instead. I'll be far more worried when they unite under a new banner, a banner that doesn't carry any historical significance that might set off some alarm bells for people getting involved. You're not going to fool anyone when you walk around waving a Nazi flag and of those who do rally under it, many will only leave after experiencing the dreadful life that comes along with such causes, and some are beyond any redemption, being true believers in their cause.
They're a bunch of sad wanna-be's and I suspect that the sooner the world can help them realize that, the sooner some of them will quit.
Re: Ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
No, you can't refuse service because of race, sex, or sexual orientation.
If I went into a bakery owned by a Cambodian ex-pat and tried to order a cake glorifying Pol Pot I'd be justifiably refused. Political views and the advocacy of violence are not protected in that setting.
Re: Ridiculous (Score:3)
So even a bunch of race supremacists holding swastikas aren't NAZIs in your book?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 a
Re:More leftist censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
The government is bound to allow free speech. A corporation doesn't have to put up with things they find objectionable. There are other options for those pushing hate and GoDaddy is certainly in the right here.
Re:More leftist censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More leftist censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
The government is bound to allow free speech. A corporation doesn't have to put up with things they find objectionable. There are other options for those pushing hate and GoDaddy is certainly in the right here.
This is one of those very tough cases, to be honest. I believe that a website disparaging a counterproster at a nazi protest is utterly repulsive, and I didn't see the website so I don't know if they were encouraging others to do the same (the article [yes, I read it] is unclear on the exact content), but for the sake of argument let's assume the site simply discussed their twisted agenda and said lots of very mean and repulsive things, but did not make an explicit call to violence.
GoDaddy does not want to host the site. Fine. Will Twitter allow them to keep an account? I mean, they seem to turn a blind eye toward ISIS, but they too are a private company and don't have to enforce their ToS evenly. Let's assume Amazon does the same thing and disallows them to use AWS, and let's also assume Google blacklists the domain from ever showing up on a web search, because 'a corporation doesn't have to put up with things they find objectionable'.
Will their ISP disconnect their account if they set up their own web server and point their domain toward their own self-hosted web server if the ISP finds their message objectionable?
Freedom of Speech has had two interrelated issues in the information age. The first is that even free speech was far more limited when it was 'a dude on a soapbox' vs. 'another dude on a soapbox', or more specifically, printing presses and 'a dude on a horse', because the distribution model was still far more limited than what we have today. Would the first amendment have been phrased differently if it was viable to foresee this very situation at that time? I don't know.
The second issue is what I dub 'the corporate abstraction layer'. The government can't do X, but a corporation can, and the government can compel a corporation to do X, so X is done. The government gets to point to the corporation to prove they didn't do it, the corporation gets to point to the government compelling them to do it, and thus there are few repercussions to either. The government is bound to allow free speech, of which 'posting on the internet' has been included as per a number of court decisions. However, every means of exercising that right, at some point, passes through a corporation which is not required to adhere to the first amendment if they sufficiently disagree with the content.
We now find ourselves in this problematic situation. I loathe everything this group stands for and sincerely wish they would all stop. However, I do believe they have a right to place their message on the internet. GoDaddy is in a pretty bad spot right now, because they can either stand for free speech by siding with a group that is highly unpopular in the court of public opinion. For them to do so would likely result in a boycott, mass domain migration, and no shortage of bad press. For them, it would be the worst possible hill to die on, especially since it gives them a better public standing to ban them. On the other hand, they have set a precedent of banning 'sufficiently unpopular speech', which nobody cares about 'now'. 'First they came for the neonazis'...
Thus, we have found ourselves in a place where free speech is no longer a right, but a privilege granted by some combination of actuarial tables, NSLs, and the court of public opinion. As terrible and abhorrent as these protesters are, it is this very type of situation for which the first amendment must be clearly defined in the 21st century, and a platform be given equally for unpopular ideas as popular ones.
Thank you Slashdot, for allowing me to post my unpopular opinion.
Re: (Score:3)
In this case they probably would have had to leave the site up. Hate speech is free speech. Funny thing, the original rulings on speech were to benefit liberals, now the alt-right is using the same rulings.
Re: (Score:3)
It is censorship, but corporations have generally been able to do that. I hope GoDaddy would do the same to an alt-left site advocating killing people as well.
Re:More leftist censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
As usual, leftists want to censor things rather than refute them. The greatest enemy to free speech in the world is leftists. If you can refute someone, speak up and do it, even if the speech is disagreeable, such as white supremacy.
It's not censorship or a violation of freedom of speech. All they did was cancel the hosting of the site. The site is free to purchase hosting services somewhere else. It's basically as if GoDaddy owned a bulletin board and someone puts a flyer on there they don't like. They are free to remove that flyer and tell the person not to post it again. Individuals (corporations, etc) are not obligated to provide you a forum for your speech, and your right to free speech does not translate into a right to be heard by others.
Personally, I never thought I'd be on GoDaddy's side on anything, but I have no problem with this.
Re:More leftist censorship (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not censorship or a violation of freedom of speech. All they did was cancel the hosting of the site. The site is free to purchase hosting services somewhere else.
Are they still free to purchase hosting services within the US, though? Anti-terrorism laws apply to that kind of extremist content.
Well good thing for them Trump refuses to call them terrorists, or even mention them at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like how Obama didn't call the BLM protester who killed 5 cops in Dallas a terrorist.
"Oh, but that's different!" No, it really isn't. Both BLM and the Nazis need to go...they're both breeding violent, hate-filled people.
Re:More leftist censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
He condemned hatred on both sides because there is racism and hatred on both sides. The only reason why there has been this reassurance of white supremacy is because white racism is fashionable and the left have been "feeding the trolls" so to speak.
Censoring, no platforming, and violently protesting legitimizes anyone.
Re: (Score:3)
Are they still free to purchase hosting services within the US, though? Anti-terrorism laws apply to that kind of extremist content.
Yes, they are. The US still has very strong protections of speech, even despicable speech. What they can't do is incite people to violence.
Re:More leftist censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
As usual, private enterprises want to distance themselves from objectively horrible people because it may cost them money.
As usual, objectively horrible people suddenly decide that it is "censorship" if private enterprises decide that they do not want to be associated with said objectively horrible people, and completely forget about the whole "freedom of association" thing.
Because they're the ones running down their opponents with cars...
Re: (Score:2)
The greatest enemy to free speech in the world is leftists. If you can refute someone, speak up and do it
... says the Anonymous Coward
Re: More leftist censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They're also free to start their own hosting company. The first amendment doesn't require others to let you use their press. In an ideal world every company would agree with you, but we don't live there and if GoDaddy thinks being associated with these people will hurt their business then they're obligated to ditch them.
Who's going to provide them upstream bandwidth? Comcast? Level3? Cogent? i.e. private companies worried that being associated with these people will hurt their business?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
However, I think counter protests should be a lot more clever. You can't really f
Re: (Score:3)
This issue has been well addressed by the courts. This sort of editorial control does not result in the loss of safe harbor protections.
Re: (Score:3)
What, the Daily Stormer? Of course it was [wikipedia.org]. It was named after the German Nazi Party's weekly tabloid, Der Stürmer (1923-1945).
Now anonymous has taken over the domain, but you can check the wayback if you like. It had sections for "The Jewish Problem" and "Race War" full of racist imagery [archive.org].
Now, to be fair some of the people who read and contributed to the thing were just chaosmongers. But that was true of the original Nazis too. Authoritarianism for the follower is about the thrill of transgressive