Google bins white supremacist site after it tries to host-hop away from GoDaddy Google's become the latest company to let alt-right site The Daily Stormer know it's not welcome to register its domain. GoDaddy yesterday gave the site 24 hours notice to move on after it published vile comments about Heather Heyer, the woman killed during protests in Charlottesville, Virginia. A Google statement says the …
Surprisingly, given how often it's been mentioned, shouting fire in a theatre for fun has never been litigated before, so is still uncertain under the law whether it's actually a limitation. It was a comment by a judge in one of their rulings, but wasn't actually directly related to the ruling so was never actually investigated
I think you are correct. As far as I know there's no law against 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' and that its merely an example of the limitations of the law protecting free speech.
The point is that courts used it as an example that not all speech is protected and that there are limitations.
You have the right to speak your mind, however when its used to intentionally cause harm that you can run afoul to the law...
The trouble is that its a very difficult case to make.
For example.... you have BLM (Black Lives Matter) and their protests where they have been recorded promoting violence against police. In Dallas 5 police officers were shot and killed protecting BLM marchers by a protester who wanted to kill police.
Can you charge BLM for their actions? (There is a civil lawsuit, but its not a criminal prosecution)
You would have to show that the gunman actions were tied directly to the prior marches and their calls for death to the 'pigs'.
Its not an easy thing to do.
Yes it was decided. The comment was made as an example in the opinion of the Supreme Court ruling that there are limits to Free Speech. That opinion has since been partially over turned by a 1969 decision that said only speech that incites imminent criminal action is illegal. So, unfortunately, as long as these scumbags are peaceful their hateful, dangerous ignorance is protected speech.
@ mark 85 " I'm thinking civil discourse is lost on certain groups."
.
i'm thinking the principle of actual free speech is lost on most sheeple...
.
the bedrock right of free speech is fundamental to maintaining all other rights...
that takes precedence over ANYONE's and EVERYONE's pwecious, pwecious feelz...
suck it up, buttercup...
Shutting down Nazis isn't about anyone's precious feelings. It's about stopping the spread of an ideology that is quite explicit about what it wants to do to anyone who doesn't belong. And no-one gets to quote "Godwin's law" this time; these people really are Nazis, they shout Nazi slogans, copy Nazi imagery, and most importantly, want to follow Nazi ideas about race.
I'm not sure that argument holds water. Allowing people with really unpopular opinions speak their mind generally doesn't end up with them gaining a lot of support, just a lot of derision and mocking. Regardless of how hateful their message is, letting them talk about it makes it easier to combat.
"I think you're missing the fact that the first amendment refers to the Government not restricting your right to free speech.
Google is not the government (yet), so they can do whatever they want in this regard, provided they aren't violating anti-discrimination laws."
I continue to be worried by this - often made - argument: In theory you have a right to free speech, but in practice, big corporations can always take it away from you. This is not a thing to rejoice over just because it's happening to people you disagree with. What happens when it's your opinion that is deemed to reduce advertising revenue?
Mark,
This is a bit of a Gordian knot. (Note the historical reference...)
Germany had outlawed the use of the Nazi symbol and anything pertaining to Hitler and his Third Reich.
(No need to cite Goodwin, we're discussing history)
The US has the first amendment which means that the US Government can't stop or interfere with any group's right to peacefully protest. While I abhor their message, I will defend their right to say it and protect them from persecution from expressing their opinion. That's the American way.
However, Google is still a private company that hasn't been found to be a monopoly. So its within their right to refuse hosting a site which promotes hate. Same too for Go Daddy. Having said that, I wish that they wouldn't. The reason is that it will force the group(s) to go underground and harder to monitor. Aka hosting their message on the 'dark web'. (Site that look innocent yet go to an image, click on it and enter a secret password to unlock other portions of the site... ) Its important that groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center be able to monitor these groups.
While you speak of civil discourse, things get confusing. Do you condone the violence caused by those protesting the protest? Its one thing to shout down the speaker, its another to come armed ready for violence and to attack the protest.
Here, the police and the local mayor let the people down because they didn't stop the violence. Things did get out of hand.
Trump condemned the violence, on both sides. Yet he was criticized until he strongly condemned the 'white supremacists' and then it was too late. The truth is that if you're going to allow 'anti-fascists' (who act more like fascists they claim to hate) or the BLM which have called for violence against police... both groups have shown acts of violent protests... to not face condemnation, then you can't condemn the 'white supremacists'. To do so would be not only hypocritical but also encourage further acts of illegal 'civil discourse'.
Sorry for the long post. The point is that too many feel justified in their use of violence.
The largest irony is that the protest was about protecting the statues and the historical significance of the men and as a reminder to the American Civil War. If you think about it... the Germans and other countries kept Hitler's death camps around as a reminder of the Holocaust. They could easily have been torn down and plowed over. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
This is why the whole situation is both prophetic and ironic.
I don't blame Trump, but I do blame Congress, the MSM, and of course our education system where the significance of history is being lost and not taught. Many here were not alive back in 1977 or old enough to understand the significance of the Neo-Nazi march on Skokie IL. Its a shame. IIRC, the number of police in riot gear outnumbered the marchers.
While you speak of civil discourse, things get confusing. Do you condone the violence caused by those protesting the protest? Its one thing to shout down the speaker, its another to come armed ready for violence and to attack the protest.
Civil discourse to me is not violence or physical confrontation. Those last two are intimidation and not discourse. I do not condone the violence. If we, as a country open the can of worms by banning the speech of those we disagree with, then we have sunk to their level. Once we start down that sloop there's no telling where it will stop.
I do agree with you. Sadly, the group that got noticed in this Confederacy statue/memorial conflict was an extremist group and the back lash is bound to do no justice to the memorials or to the people.
Let's go back further to the Civil Rights marches. Or the Labor Unions marches of the late 1800's. I daresay that history is repeating itself... over and over and over.
I think the point is that the act of creating a site that doesn't call for violence but supports an opinion, regardless of how vile you think it is, should be allowed. While the government legally has no right to hinder the freedom of expression, corporations should allow it if it doesn't violate their ToS. So if you allow BLM to have a web site, PETA, etc... then you should allow these so called 'White Supremacists' to have their web site. (Keeping above ground makes it easier to track... which is another separate benefit).
Its when these sites call for violence that they run afoul of the law and should be shut down. (e.g. ISIS)
That's what is being said.
If you go to the Fox News site, Tucker Carlson had a brilliant commentary on Google as well as had the Google Engineer on to discuss his termination. Regardless of your political leanings, its a really good and thought provoking piece.
The reason I mention it is that the removal of the 'white supremacist' site shows the arbitrary nature of what is and is not allowed to be hosted.
I am uncomfortable with domain registars pulling sites for political reasons. Unless I haven't paid my bills, or your have a court document... you shouldn't be pulling my domain for ANY reason.
This is one of those "Slippery slopes" where the big domain hosts are going to be pressured to pull domains of anyone the ruling political class doesn't like.
This is a bad thing, regardless of your political alignment.
I just want a nice amoral registar and host who will keep my site up, in return for the money I give them. Politics of the day be damned.
I am uncomfortable with domain registars pulling sites for political reasons.
If you think that this is anything to do with politics, then there is no hope. This is rather more serious than politics, it's more a measure of how the patience and tolerance of a normal civilised society is limited and whether it refuses to be exploited by people who have (in most peoples' opinion) foresaken any rights to express themselves, stand for election, etc.
To say that this is about politics means that these people should be allowed to participate in politics. You know, stand for election, campaign, go door to door. That didn't work out so well last time such a group of people were allowed.
The great fear, and severe danger, is that these people will be able to use the US legal system to overcome any attempt to disbar them from politics. That would be supremely dangerous.
Remember that Americans have already been illogical in voting for Trump; imagine if someone beguiling from a group such as this starts appearing on the campaign trail, starts turning on the charisma, etc.
What America needs right now is a united political leadership that comes out and nips this in the bud. Unfortunately...
It's also going to be a severe test of the Social Networks. They need to keep their networks squeaky clean. It's no good just partially surpressing posts and comments from people like this. Trouble is that I can't see how they can do this as they currently operate. And the normal Citizenry cannot help; e.g. a closed Facebook group is not something that you can protest at, report, etc without being inside it.
The irony that there are actually people here arguing that some parts of their society should amongst other things be disbarred from expressing their opinions or engaging in politics, because they're fascists, is profound. The way to deal with these people is to show them up for the odious losers they are, not resort to the kind of authoritarian repression they would argue for - and in the process turn them into some kind of glamourous oppressed resistance. It's not as if they argument should be hard to make - simple demographics mean the attraction of a white supremacist/KKK/neo-Nazi "movement" is always going to be right out on the margins.
Until they're NOT. People act on their hearts first, their brains second, especially in a crisis, and evil can be extremely charismatic. Remember, Adolf Hitler was ELECTED. Do you really want civilization to be torn down by a charismatic despot able to sway the stupid?
Do you think that banning old Adolf's web-site would have removed him from the equation? Highly unlikely. In all likelihood, he and his supporters would have found it empowering. They'd have then used the fact that they were being censored as proof of their being right. And this would have driven more of the disenfranchised to their cause. Removing a medium of publication is analogous to putting a t-shirt on over a skin lesion. The cancer is still there, it will still spread, you just cannot see it.
"simple demographic trends" across the West should maybe make white people wake up across the West and THINK whether it is really such a good idea to be throwing such labels around against people who might actually have a point concerning white people on projection to lose all major homelands within mere decades.
who might actually have a point concerning white people on projection to lose all major homelands within mere decades.
Homelands? Remind me, if you want to talk of race, who is the intruder in North America? Were you in favour of white people wiping out Native Americans, enslaving black Africans and then segregating and disenfranchising black people after being forced to free them? Yet all you have to face is being outvoted, if people do actually vote en bloc by ethnicity in favour of something which you don't also favour.
This is what happens when you forget that people are people. This is what happens when you are taught to hate: you teach yourself to live in fear.
"Homelands? Remind me, if you want to talk of race, who is the intruder in North America? Were you in favour of white people wiping out Native Americans, enslaving black Africans and then segregating and disenfranchising black people after being forced to free them?"
So, no homeland for the Jews then? As for intruders, shall we insist on rolling back the expansion of the Zulus, the Han Chinese, Islam? Shall we all go back to Homo Sapiens' origin point in Africa and leave the rest of the planet vacant? Oh, and the people who 'forced' the freedom of black people in the US, they were white people. "This is what happens when you forget that people are people. This is what happens when you are taught to hate: you teach yourself to live in fear."
And there you have it - are you worried about "white people", or are you worried about "people"? As far as I can see "white people" are still running the show, still have most of the wealth, and in the case of the USA, are still far less likely to get shot by a policeman.
The way to deal with these people is to show them up for the odious losers they are, not resort to the kind of authoritarian repression they would argue for - and in the process turn them into some kind of glamourous oppressed resistance.
Why give freedom of speech to someone who wouldn't give it to you?
I believe the counter demonstration was to show them up for the odious losers they were, and one of the demonstrators got killed for her trouble.
Do we really need to allow a constant deluge of alt-right hatred being vomited out of monitors and into people's heads to show how kind and generous and noble we are, when all it does is help bring about a change in society that would put an end to everybody's freedom of speech? There's no facts, there's no to-and-fro of debate, all there is is just the kind of crap is just one step before ISIS beheading videos on YouTube and nobody has any problem with pulling the plug on those.
Once you start to remove the voice of someone whose message you find distasteful, you are no longer living in a democracy. If this were Trump trying to remove the web-sites of his opponents, there'd be an outcry (and quite rightly). It cannot be one rule for one and another for those you dislike.
I find child porn distasteful (to use your word) and think it should be taken down. Does that make the country any less democratic?
Nobody is obliged to give them a platform. Why they hell should Google, GoDaddy, or anyone else host a website which supports someone running over a group of anti-fascist demonstrators a platform? Other people have got run over by vehicles acting in the name of ISIS, should Google be obliged to give them a platform as well? Both preach hatred. Both are OK with murder. What's the difference?
As for the post above, if we're going full Godwin... if nobody published Mein Kampf then old Adolf would have had a harder time.
'Why give freedom of speech to someone who wouldn't give it to you?'
I believe it's to demonstrate your principles are better than theirs?
Glib quote “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”
For those comparing it to child porn, child porn is illegal, ditto beheading someone. If the Daily Stormer is doing anything like that then sure, close it down and prosecute those responsible. If you want it shut down because you just don't like it, then you're no better than they are.
I agree this site should just remain up. Banning any kind of speech is a really bad idea. YES, even when it is hateful vile bovine excrement spewing forth from unsavory people with objectionable ideas (to say the least). They and their speech should be in the open for people to point at and laugh at.
All this bullshit about "but some guy in the 1930s got to power that way and did horrible things, and he said all this same stuff" ignores the whole gamut of other (horrible) people who got to power saying different things. Like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or Castro (or any other of the left and rightwing dictators we have seen in the world). Or in a lesser league the likes of Bush, Obama, Trump, Merkel, Erdogan, Wilders, etc. The one thing all these people generally have in common is that what they started out doing was controlling the public opinion, by controlling what people could say and what they heard in the media. Hosting providers blocking a site for political reasons is a dangerous precedent. One that can easily be exploited later by those with less obvious motives.
Just allowing someone to talk, even if it is vile isn't a danger. Let them stay out in the open where they can be seen and ridiculed instead of pressing them underground where it becomes hard to follow who agrees with their ideas. If they actually ACT on their stupidity in a way that is a against the law then bring the hammer down hard.
@imanidiot
Banning any kind of speech is a really bad idea.
Hmmm...not ANY kind of speech. We have laws (in the UK at least) about incitement. You can't post on FB saying "Go out and slaughter all the sub-human <insert-name-of-minority-here>" and then expect to be able to get away with saying "Oh, I didn't think anyone would take me seriously" as you're surrounded by a pile of bodies and a mob with bloody pitchforks, or even when a paediatrician gets their front-door daubed with threats. (The UK has a wonderful education system)
But - 'banning'? I'm not aware that anyone has 'banned' this odious bunch of moronic, hate-filled scum. Various private companies have decided they don't want anything to do with them, that is not the same as a 'ban'. More of a boycott, which seems perfectly reasonable.
P.S. Never mind "As much as I hate nazis, but..." I hate Nazis. Period (as the USians say) I learned to hate them. I will not learn to love them. Ever. They must never be allowed to triumph again.
I am struggling to discern whether your remarks are aimed at the Left orthe Right. It seems actually that they apply more to the Left.
Well, bigotry rules, OK?
is there a difference between the fascist and the anti-fascist, other than the anti-fascist's greater indulgence in hypocrisy?
In the end, both, like you, have been led by the nose as 'useful idiots' enslaved by propaganda, and both denying that they alone have not...
is there a difference between the fascist and the anti-fascist, other than the anti-fascist's greater indulgence in hypocrisy?
You appear to have forgotten what fascists actually stand for. I suggest you take a history lesson to refresh your memory (and not one of those mangled lessons where the Holocaust was airbrushed out of documented history).
> Remember that Americans have already been illogical in voting for Trump; imagine if someone beguiling from a group such as this starts appearing on the campaign trail, starts turning on the charisma, etc.
Yes, just imagine what democracy would be like if people could vote for whomever they wanted. Thank goodness for the elite who can block candidates they deem inappropriate for mere plebs to choose.
@another-AC
Yes, just imagine what democracy would be like if people could vote for whomever they wanted.
Democracy is a great principle. I like it. <obligatory Churchill quote about democracy>
But...there are times and places where the basic ideals are being stretched to breaking point. Go back to the original attempts - Athens in BC whatever. All citizens get together, debate an issue and vote. (Of course, women and slaves weren't citizens, but they don't count anyway)
Later we introduced representative democracy. Britain led the world. The local rich bastards get together and vote for one of their mates to represent them in Parliament. (Obviously poor people, women etc don't count)
Later we gave more people the chance to vote for some crook to go to Parliament on their behalf. Elections used to be important occasions. People actually got involved and debated the issues - at the pub, at work, at home - they went to packed meetings with the candidates. The newspapers debated the arguments. Voters had a fair understanding of what they were voting for (or against).
Now? I'm not so sure. People complain they can't vote online - it's too much hassle to walk to the polling station. In many cases votes are cast on the basis of prejudice and ignorance, without any attempt to understand the issues. Remember, in Athens, ALL the voters debated the issue in public before voting.
I'm not sure how to fix the system, while retaining the basic principles, but it badly needs fixing. At the rate we're going we'll have the "Pi should be 3" Party winning a referendum on the basis of emotive FB posts and blatantly lying headlines in the Mail and Express. Even more worrying, the Tories and Corbyn will attempt to make it law as "It's the will of the people".
If it's not broken, don't fix it. But if it IS broken...
Yes, just imagine what democracy would be like if people could vote for whomever they wanted. Thank goodness for the elite who can block candidates they deem inappropriate for mere plebs to choose.
You mean like the DNC promoting a criminal in waiting (Clinton) over what was supposed to be a cream puff in Bernie Sanders?
Naw, that couldn't be it. Us Amerikans are too stupid to see that she and her crew were gaming the system. One could even argue that Trump got a lot of free political air time because the MSM thought Clinton could beat him. (Heck even the Russians and most of the world thought that.)
Free clue. What happened to Bernie was wrong. While I don't agree with his politics, I believe he's sincere in his beliefs and is basically honest for a politician. This is just one example as to why we need to drain the swamp.
If you think that this is anything to do with politics, then there is no hope. This is rather more serious than politics,
What do you think politics is?
it's more a measure of how the patience and tolerance of a normal civilised society is limited and whether it refuses to be exploited by people who have (in most peoples' opinion) foresaken any rights to express themselves, stand for election, etc.
So you're saying people with views you disagree with shouldn't be allowed to express those views??
The great fear, and severe danger, is that these people will be able to use the US legal system to overcome any attempt to disbar them from politics. That would be supremely dangerous.
[...]
What America needs right now is a united political leadership that comes out and nips this in the bud.
So you're saying this group of people you disagree with should be silenced and stopped??!
Sounds a bit fascist to me.
(Difficult this 'freedom' stuff isn't it. ;) )
Seriously though, be careful when condemning a group of bigots that you don't unintentionally use their techniques; "lets stop and silence all the people we don't agree with" generally leads to the thing it's trying to prevent.
If you don't think this is as much to do with politics, then I suggest they you actually go back to school and learn something...
Case in point. BLM have been well documented for calling for violence against the Police. Multiple occasions in multiple marches.
In Dallas there was a shooting of 5 officers assigned to protect the marchers. (Irony?)
There have been other attacks on police in NY, LA, and other states that could be attributed to the BLM.
DO YOU SEE ANYONE CALLING FOR THEIR SITE TO BE TAKEN DOWN?
And that, sir is the point.
You blame Trump. Seems that you're drinking the MSM kool-aid. (That's a Jim Jones reference)
Trump has nothing to do with this and he was correct in condemning both sides for the violence.
Free clue. Member of the anti-fascists came to protest the rally and they came armed with weapons and shields. That means that they were prepared for violence and it shows premeditation. (Intent and Mens Rea.)
Clearly you don't understand why many voted for Trump. I doubt if I told you, you would understand.
(I guess I could ask you why people voted for Brexit, but again, you wouldn't understand.)
So please get a clue. It would help when discussing a topic.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
