back to article Daily Stormer binned by yet another registrar, due to business risks

Yet another domain name registrar has declined to give white supremacist web site The Daily Stormer an easy way back onto the web. easyDNS has refused to host the site, which has already been binned by GoDaddy after activists pointed out the site had a long history of publishing hate speech and took its rhetoric to new lows …

  1. Florida1920
    Pint

    Philosophies will ultimately succeed or fail on their own merits within the marketplace of ideas

    Looks like that's what's happening. People aren't exactly lining up with open checkbooks to find DS a home they can hang on to.

  2. Snow Wombat
    Big Brother

    It beings.

    While I disagree with what TDS says, I will defend their right to say it.

    This is a terrifying development that domain registrars are acting as censor, and stating that certain types of content can not even have a domain.

    This is the beginning of the slippery slope, because in every other realm of the Internet, we have seen this behaviour. It starts with "Hate speech" but very quickly the scope creeps and we have all manner of things being banned, usually by a very narrow and vocal group of far left / Marxist / Social Justice types.

    Unless registrars are presented with court paperwork demanding they take down a domain, they shouldn't be touched.

    PR / Business reasons is just a cover for censorship.

    1. Florida1920

      Re: It beings.

      This is the beginning of the slippery slope,

      I think Neo-Nazis are the end of a slippery slope. Hello, these people think the Holocaust either didn't happen or was a Good Thing. These people think lynching black people is cool. Somehow, interdicting them doesn't seem like a bad idea. We're not talking censoring PETA or the Sierra Club here. And I won't be convinced that corporations -- not governments -- refusing service to supremacist sites poses any threat to free speech. Where do we as moral actors draw the line and say, No, this shall not stand?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It beings.

        > "I think Neo-Nazis are the end of a slippery slope."

        How glib, but that's not Snow Wombat's point, and that is that this is censorship, period. You may think it's great that these Nazis are being blocked by private companies from having a web presence, but you would sing a different tune were some group you support to be treated that way.

        You will respond that you would never support that kind of group, but I say the groups you do support might get characterized that way by someone, some day. It's happened plenty of times. And at those times there were plenty who talked like you, and were more than happy to help stomp on the censorship targets, because they were "bad."

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: It beings.

          It's not upto some registrar to decide what we can and can't see on the net - that's Google's job

        2. scarletherring

          Re: It beings.

          > You may think it's great that these Nazis are being blocked by private companies from having a web presence, but you would sing a different tune were some group you support to be treated that way.

          And yet I think it's a pretty safe bet that you were completely fine with that bigoted bakery (private business) refusing to service gay customers? You can't have it both ways, in fact that's exactly what you're accusing others of here.

      2. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

        Re: Free speach

        Defending peoples' right to tell happy stories about the littlest elf is easy. It is more difficult when the speech is the rantings of a deluded Nazi. If you start saying only some kinds of free speech is all right then you will end up with presidential edicts banning the mention of modal warning and primate strange.

        [Post modified to allow publication in the US.]

    2. Teiwaz Silver badge

      Re: It beings.

      usually by a very narrow and vocal group of far left / Marxist / Social Justice types.

      Yeah, 'cause they are obviously the only types that want to ban things they don't agree with, and everyone else, including the right just want free speech, open dialog and fluffy bunnies...</sarcasm-indicator>

      While I kind of agree with most your sentiments, that little addendum clearly screams right wing nut-job.

      And your posting history confirms it.

    3. Winkypop Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Re: It beings.

      Once you invoke nazis (and their ilk) you lose all rights and respect.

      Period.

      Never give a nazi a break, never.

    4. Joe Werner Silver badge

      Re: It beings.

      They are f'ing Nazis (no, really, and the corollary of Godwin doesn't hold here).

      While I do believe that everybody has rights and freedoms, there are limits. Those people deny the fact that the Germans ('k and some collaborators, mostly the Krauts) killed millions of Jews (and gypsies and gays and people with mental or physical disabilities and "communists", well more like social democrats, the latter on smaller scales) - or some of them even think it was a good thing and you should repeat that with [insert group here].

      If you are an animal rights activist, a communist, an ultra conservative, a pastafarian, a member of $religiousgroup, anything, I will hear your thoughts and listen to them (once...) and defend your right to say them. If you start advocating atrocities and mass murder (or murdering my family and friends) you are out.

      Yes, free speech is a right. Rights always come with responsibilities - at least that is what my parents taught me...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It beings.

        If it is so very wrong to extend the right to free speech to Nazi Party groups, then why was it the policy of the ACLU to defend that speech for so long? The Legal Director at the ACLU recently wrote an article addressing these points. In short, he disagrees with you on this topic.

        I case you don't know, the ACLU is pretty respected on these issues, because of their past stands on principle even when the majority strongly opposed them.

      2. h4rm0ny

        Re: It beings.

        It's all well and good saying Nazis shouldn't have the right to Free Speech (though I believe the right to Free Speech is absolute), but are you unaware that people get labelled Nazis all the time without actually being such? That reasonable discussion gets labelled as Hate Speech and suppressed? Brigette Bardot has been sentenced multiple times for "Hate Speech" in France and fined substantially because she is a vocal animal rights campaigner and despises the Islamic practice of Halal slaughter. In Denmark it is illegal to "mock or scorn any established religious group". What if Sarah Champion - an MP who was heavily involved investigating the Rotherham child abuse cases talks about rape tolerance in Pakistani communities - gets labelled as Hate Speech, as some would like? In Germany, there's a good chance it would have been classed as Hate Speech and supressed. And in the UK, if she weren't an MP but just a local woman saying the same things, I could see her being prosecuted.

        You can say Nazis shouldn't have Free Speech, but nobody gets to decide whether others view them as a Nazi or not. Hell, I've seen Antifa types marching with a hammer and sickle logo! How many Jewish people were killed by the Soviets? No doubt some wag will try to split the finest of hairs and argue that it's a communist symbol, not a Soviet one (despite being created in Russia during the Bolshevik revolution). But if that's the case, then the Swastika is a Hindu good luck symbol when American racists use it and my uncle is Xenu.

        Allowing businesses to decide who gets to talk / assemble / promote themselves and who doesn't, is very, very dangerous. And yes - a slippery slope. Removing Free Speech is probably the slipperiest of slopes in fact.

        Not to treat this whole topic lightly, but first they came for the Nazis, and I did nothing because I am not a Nazi...

      3. Eltonga
        Headmaster

        Re: It beings.

        Actually, Free Speech is a right, and nazis have it too.

        The difference is what happens after you exercise that right, and that's what everyone is confusing. One has the right to say whatever one thinks, but there is the rest of the legal aspect that applies.

        Defending oneself on the basis of free speech is childlish at best.

      4. CrashMarik

        Re: It beings.

        If you don't want to hear what they have to say don't listen.

        I refute the right of anyone to tell me what I can and can't listen to. There's already people censoring news of crimes committed by protected groups. Hazards of living in a big city and all that.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It beings.

      I see we are back to the same argument.

      It's every f*cking article.

      This boils down to a few simple questions and you have to take your "but they are Nazis" hats off.

      Do you want freedom of speech?

      Do you want some company to force someones ideology off the internet because it offends someone?

      Do you want censorship even if it in the future it could censor something you agree with?

      Do you agree that it's not right to refuse someone access to the infrastructure of the internet because the majority don't agree?

      Put simply, if you answered "Yes" to any of those questions then you can't be in favour of the actions of these companies.

      A very good point is that fascists (or Nazis) burned books and oppressed any opinion that disagreed with their ideology. What exactly are you doing now? How very fascist of you all.

      Leave them where there are so they can be ridiculed and shown for the idiots they are because lets be honest they aren't going to use these websites to recruit any sane rational person, unless of course you want to force them underground where you don't know how many there are or what they are up to?

    6. DougS Silver badge

      This isn't censorship

      They aren't preventing Daily Stormer from being heard, they are refusing to provide them a platform to shout from. You may support free speech, maybe to the point where if you owned a vacant lot next to your house you'd be happy to make it available for public gatherings and allow republicans, democrats, save the whales, cut our taxes and so forth to use it to get their message out.

      Perhaps you may draw the line at pro choice and pro life gatherings, not because you want to censor them but because emotions get inflamed to the point that when some people find out you are responsible with giving the "enemy" a platform to spread their views that they decide to respond by vandalizing the car sitting in your driveway next door. Sure that's illegal, but it is still a hassle having to drive around a car with "baby killer" spray painted on it, and your insurance going up when it happens twice in six months.

      Even if you publicly say you are 100% against Daily Stormer's speech, if you give them a platform you are going to have deal with a lot of negative publicity/boycotts, and likely be subject to constant DOS attacks that affect your other customers, etc. Even nazis have a right to free speech, but companies are not required to provide them the platform, and it isn't a violation of their free speech for others to say "if you give you them a platform, I will boycott you". It is no different than if company X donated money to Planned Parenthood and you were pro-life, you deciding not to buy company X's products.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: This isn't censorship

        It is censorship.

        It's censorship dictated by a populist movement. The majority disagree so the companies bow to their pressure.

        Now what happens when that populist movement moves onto something else, let's say Muslims because they perceive them to be intolerant of the LGBT community. Would you be happy for hosting companies to ban any religious or Muslim websites even if they don't have any anti LGBT messages just because they are Muslims?

        I've said it before and I will say again, populist movements that exert control over media do not end well. If they get a charismatic leader who says what they want to hear then those Nazis that everyone hates is what you will become, history will repeat itself but it's ok you can justify it because you are "doing the right thing" just as those Germans back in the 1930's believed they were "doing the right thing". These Nazis are nothing compared to a group backed by a large populist movement.

        1. Mad Mike

          Re: This isn't censorship

          It seems a lot of the commentators are knee jerk responding to the word 'Nazi' and loosing rational thought. Yes, everything these people stand for is abhorent. Absolutely spot on. However, they are simply one abhorent group amongst many. There are plenty of other groups around the world spreading hate and bile and even carrying it out. People are simply responding to the word as it has historical legacy from WWII.

          In reality, there are many groups and organisations, whether extreme left, right or whatever that are just as bad. However, most (I won't say all as I can't guarantee that) still have domains registered. Take the BNP in Britain. They're a sort of slightly (only a bit) lighter version of these guys. They still have domain names. Think of all the governments around the world that are busy slaughtering their own or others citizens, yet they still have domain names. Think of the terrorist organisations (I know, depends on which side you're on....freedom fighter/terrorist etc.) that actually have domain names!!

          If you believe that DS should be banned from having a domain name, whether by statute or the court of public opinion, you should also ban many, many other organisation, governments etc. as well. If the internet is to remain a reasonably free place, with access for ALL, the use of companies to run parts of it needs to stop. Companies whose concern is for profits, will always do things to protect their profits rather than for good in general, hence this. Domain names shouldn't be controlled by companies operating for profit. A simple registration service that takes no view at all should be implemented.

          Also, when banning DS, have people thought of the downside of doing that? Whilst it's there, you can bet security services etc. are looking at every visitor and keeping an eye on some. The fact the website is there, allows them to find people who might do something. Taking it away doesn't stop these people. It just drives them use things less easily monitored. So, I bet the security services aren't in favour of this.

          Whether you can blame a commercial company for doing this or not, it does in effect end up censoring someone or some groups opinion. This isn't about right wing nutters, as there are a lot of left wing nutters around as well and if you look through history, just has many have been killed through left wing ideology as right wing. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc.etc. The issue with censorship is not who should be censored. The issue is that when you start, like all projects, it's very open to scope creep. History shows us that censorship normally results in more and more restrictions, across areas never even considered when started. The issue is that it's all about opinions rather than fact or anything like that. Once you start down the road, it will eventually hit something you care about. It's just a matter of time.

        2. katrinab Silver badge

          Re: This isn't censorship

          Please don't involve "the LGBT community" in your islamophobia. 52% of Muslims support the acceptance of homosexuality, compared with 34% of white Christians; and Muslims are way more accepting of trans people. Bisexuals are equally invisible everywhere.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: This isn't censorship

            @katrinab

            Typical knee jerk reaction to not reading or understanding simple English and it's use.

            Let me repeat it for you and please take the time to read it slowly.

            "let's say Muslims because they perceive them to be intolerant of the LGBT community"

            "they perceive" - This means someone has viewpoint that is not correct unless in their perception, the "they" in my example are the populist movement or the majority who could be led to believe it to be true. I use this example because it is an incorrect assessment that is thrown about by the press and in social media.

            How you got to Islamophobia from my comment is quite frankly ridiculous and you should go and take some time to think about how you react to things and I suggest when you first perceive something you disagree with that you read it again to see if it does or if as in this case it actually agrees with you.

          2. MrRimmerSIR!

            Re: This isn't censorship

            Doesn't appear that way in practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory

        3. Gordon JC Pearce

          Re: This isn't censorship

          How exactly is it censorship? No-one is stopping TDS propagating their message.

        4. PatientOne

          Re: This isn't censorship

          "It is censorship.

          It's censorship dictated by a populist movement. The majority disagree so the companies bow to their pressure."

          I disagree: The DS made a claim that their provider supported their views: The provider was remaining neutral in interest of free speech. That put the provider into an awkward position and the CEO decided that to maintain their neutrality, they had to kick the DS out. The CEO went on record regarding this and was not exactly happy with being backed into a corner by TDS like that. Other providers are aware of this and don't want to be put into the same position, not because of opponents of the DS, but because of actions the DS have already taken.

          So this is less about free speech and more about false claims.

    7. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: It beings.

      This is a terrifying development...

      No it's not. The terrifying development is if they get into power.

      The most sensible thing to would be to follow Germany's lead on how to deal with neo-Nazis/alt-right or whatever you want to call them, since they know a thing or two about their history and how they work.

      I can't believe we're still having this debate about whether or not this ideology deserves free speech or not when history shows how it gains a foothold and what it does when it gets it.

      You might defend their right to say it. They certainly wouldn't defend any of your rights.

      1. Mad Mike

        Re: It beings.

        @Dan 55.

        "No it's not. The terrifying development is if they get into power.

        The most sensible thing to would be to follow Germany's lead on how to deal with neo-Nazis/alt-right or whatever you want to call them, since they know a thing or two about their history and how they work.

        I can't believe we're still having this debate about whether or not this ideology deserves free speech or not when history shows how it gains a foothold and what it does when it gets it.

        You might defend their right to say it. They certainly wouldn't defend any of your rights."

        I think you need to recheck your history and if you understand how the Nazis got into power, you might understand how some recent leaders have got into power as well. The chances of these people getting into power are fleetingly low given todays world and where we sit. Are you seriously suggesting the Nazis got into power because all the Germans were right wing murderous nutters? The truth is that Germans were desperate and in terrible econimic difficulties. Hitler used several well tried and tested methods to get people to support him (common enemy, great speeches, bully boys etc.). The number of genuinely hardcore Nazi nutters in Germany was actually quite low. The reality was, he was offering a route out of their problems for the remainder and he was the only way offering anything, so they went with it. Then, everybody gets swept up in it. Just look at any conflict and you will see how people can carry out the most evil acts through getting swept up in things.

        Pol Pot persuaded the poor of Cambodia to again carry out all sorts of evil acts because he promised to make their lives better. This included killing anyone with an education!! Of course, it didn't work. Stalin murdered many times more people (directly or through working to death in gulags) than Hitler for all sorts of different reasons. Both these (and many others) were hard left, the supposed polar opposite of Hitler. But, they end up doing the same?

        So, stop thinking of this as a Nazi issue. It isn't. It is much wider than that. It isn't a right or left thing either. They're as bad as each other when taken to extremes.

        1. h4rm0ny

          Re: It beings.

          >>I can't believe we're still having this debate about whether or not this ideology deserves free speech or not when history shows how it gains a foothold and what it does when it gets it.

          Fun fact: The Weimar Republic (1930's Germany) introduced Hate Speech laws prohibiting "insulting religious communities" and use them to prosecute hundreds of Nazis. They're some of Europe's oldest Hate Speech laws. You know what happened? It boosted Nazi membership because people began to feel that the Nazis must have a point.

          And you know what I see a lot of today? People getting angrier and angrier that they "aren't allowed to discuss things anymore" and finding themselves increasingly aligned with more extreme groups because they've nowhere else to go or be heard.

    8. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It beings.

      While I disagree with what TDS says, I will defend their right to say it.

      This is a terrifying development that domain registrars are acting as censor, and stating that certain types of content can not even have a domain.

      Ah, the old problem with comprehensive reading. EasyDNS' decision not to host them isn't censorship, because that would involve actively preventing them from going elsewhere (as a Registrar, you could block a domain from moving and then blank out the DNS settings so they're effectively offline). EasyDNS took a decision as a business that that was not the kind of customer they wanted which is a decision every business is 100% entitled to make. The arguments, to a degree, actually do not matter - they have that right, full stop.

      Where the arguments come into play is to identify the motivation behind not accepting their money, and I think they are sound. You're looking at one end of the slope (which is IMHO not that slippery in this case due to the exact explanation of motivation), I look at the other end: where would EasyDNS end up if they did NOT do that? Should they also accept pure Nazi sites until the law comes marching with a warrant? Child pr0n outfits? Where do you draw the line of what they should "accept" as a business because it may otherwise be censorship?

      When I review a need for service, one of the explicitly required points of examination is the ethics of the people that run it (which, by the way also has a bearing on how they treat you as a customer). We go that deep because it matters to us as the ethics and associated reputation of a suppliers are but one step removed from your own. EasyDNS became a supplier exactly because of discussions with Mark. I found his stance refreshingly sane and pragmatic, and these recent blog posts prove that yet again.

      1. Naselus

        Re: It beings.

        " EasyDNS took a decision as a business that that was not the kind of customer they wanted which is a decision every business is 100% entitled to make."

        This.

        easyDNS is a company. It can decide who it does and does not do business with. 'Freedom of Speech' doesn't mean 'freedom from consequences of speech'. And one of the consequences of indulging in objectionable speech is, people don't want to do business with you or be associated with you.

        This is also why those homophobic cake shops in the US should be permitted to refuse service to gay weddings; I don't agree with them, but they are entitled to refuse to do business with people if they want. They are, after all, only disadvantaging themselves by refusing the business. This is exactly the same. It's interesting that our left-wing brethren howled with rage about the cake shops, and yet are cool with this one, while our right-wing chums were fine with the cake shops refusing service to gays but are appalled that someone might want to avoid doing business with neo-Nazis. If you were to be even-handed, then either both are fine, or both are wrong.

        Though really, if you're gonna pick one and not the other, you should side with the gays over the Nazis. I mean, seriously, it shouldn't need saying, but if you're faced with the choice, you always pick the side which worships Kylie Minogue over the side which worships Adolf Hitler.

        As for the 'this is censorship' argument; no, it's not. For starters, no-one is cutting the Stormer off from the web. Not being able to have a DNS pointer to your website is not 'being silenced'. They might be forced to rely on an IP address instead of a nice fascist-y domain name, but they're still connected to the net and can be visited. And even if they were being cut off from the internet, they can still spew their bile offline through any means that will allow them.

    9. hellsatan

      Re: It beings.

      'This is a terrifying development that domain registrars are acting as censor, and stating that certain types of content can not even have a domain.'

      This has nothing to do with censorship.

      If two persons from NAMBLA or some such were talking loudly in your local walmart about some of their more unsavoury proclivities you would be more than happy if Walmart asked them to leave. Is that censorship? Hell no, they can talk about what they want but equally a business can ask anybody to leave.

      If a business wants to disassociate itself with ANY customer it is perfectly entitled to for any reason it chooses, unless it breaches certain specific laws (here in the UK would be homophobia/racism etc).

      Associating itself with TDS WILL damage the reputation of any web service provider, and its an entirely legitimate business argument for refusing to provide that service...

      1. h4rm0ny

        Re: It beings.

        >>This has nothing to do with censorship.

        Of course it has something to do with censorship. As a legal definition, not so much. Because the laws on censorship were written in an age when it was the government that had the power to come down and shut down your printing press or handing out leaflets on the street. Those laws are outdated. Today, corporations have the power to stop you being heard. The world's eyeballs are controlled by Google and Facebook and Twitter. Increasingly places where people gather - malls, parks - are privately owned and their owners can and will throw you out. Google can and will de-monetize your channel on YouTube and Patreon can ban you. And sure, maybe you can put up your video on Daily Motion. How many of you reading this visit that compared to YouTube.

        If you want to demand that everyone online speak only in terms of the US legal system, then sure - you can tell us this isn't censorship. But the rest of us trying to have a normal conversation will disregard it. In the modern day, corporations can and do censor you. To pretend not being able to get web-hosting or be shown on YouTube or Facebook isn't significant, is to be dishonest. And to insist it isn't censorship, is to insist we all accept US law makers as the arbiters of the English language.

    10. This post has been deleted by its author

    11. Antron Argaiv Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: It beings.

      "While I disagree with what TDS says, I will defend their right to say it."

      They have a legal right under the First Amendment to say their piece without government interference.

      However, nobody is required to help them say it. This includes businesses. If TDS doesn't like this, they're free to sue.

      "...very quickly the scope creeps and we have all manner of things being banned, usually by a very narrow and vocal group of far left / Marxist / Social Justice types."

      Usually? I can name a number of right wing organizations and governments where freedom of the press is not "a thing". Read some history. You could start with Nazi Germany (since we're talking about TDS, this isn't a Godwin)

    12. Old Englishman

      Re: It beings.

      Well said, sir.

    13. Gordon JC Pearce

      Re: It beings.

      I would defend their right to say it, but I would not help them say it. They're more than welcome to go and find someone to help them spread their message, but it won't be me.

    14. Triggerfish

      Re: It beings.

      It's not censorship, they are perfectly withing their rights to start their own hosting company and ISP, if not and someone who owns a company doesn't want to host them that's not censorship. That's the companies owners having their own freedom to make a choice.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It beings.

        Sure they are but they are being forced to by the majority, they don't have a choice because if they do they would quickly go out of business.

        What if a devout Catholic was running a hosting company and refused to host any websites related to <insert something Catholics have issues with>? Then someone announces it on social media.

        Would that be ok as well or would this majority force them to or put them out of business?

        At the end of the day it's mob rule and someone has to stand up to it before it gets out of hand.

        It's censorship by the majority to what they don't like and it won't end well.

        I really don't understand why people don't understand this concept? Just wait till you get a political party that ticks all your boxes then the fun is really going to start.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: At the end of the day it's mob rule

          It's mob rule when hundreds of fascists turn up and start driving cars at crowds of people they don't agree with. Refusing to propagate the hate that leads to that kind of thing is a sensible and reasonable response.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: It beings.

          something like conservapedia perhaps ?

    15. Anonymous Cowtard
      Facepalm

      Re: It beings.

      It beings.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It beings.

        F*ck knows how many opinions and comments have been shared within this thread, no one has noticed the spelling mistake till now.

        Was it intentional?

        You may never know because you were all too fixated with your own opinions.

        Well played.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: It beings.

          I noticed it. We're discussing something a bit more important than spelling.

    16. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: It beings.

      "While I disagree with what TDS says, I will defend their right to say it."

      And they have the right to take their soap box to any street corner and preach their views. But they don't have the right to expect other to help them do it, even for money. A commercial business is allowed to choose who to do business with so long as they are not breaking any anti-discrimination laws.

  3. markjr

    Quick note from easyDNS

    To be clear, we don't bill ourselves as "The Free Speech Registrar". As I say in the post quoted, we have a *reputation* as such, and because of that reputation we felt the need to explain ourselves. Reputations are built on past actions and track records. If our decision around DS impairs that rep, so be it.

    Further, this isn't really a "free speech" issue at all. DS were never clients and we did nothing to censor their content. They can say whatever they want, but they really shouldn't be surprised if nobody wants to enter into business with them to help them say it.

    In that sense, the free speech subtext to this could be "everybody has the right to say no to a Nazi".

    Finally, as I told a few other people who think we are somehow obligated to take on a specific client, it's easy to say that when you are sitting comfortably outside the blast radius. If you feel so strongly about it *you* do it, or call up some key vendor your business relies on and convince *them* to do it.

    That is basically what capitalism is all about.

    Thank you.

    1. Florida1920
      Pint

      Re: Quick note from easyDNS

      -------------------------------------------->

      Finally, as I told a few other people who think we are somehow obligated to take on a specific client, it's easy to say that when you are sitting comfortably outside the blast radius.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Quick note from easyDNS

      "They can say whatever they want, but they really shouldn't be surprised if nobody wants to enter into business with them to help them say it."

      Enter into business? You are aware that to have a web site, one MUST do business with a registrar, and that ICANN controls what and how many companies get to be registrars? So if enough of these "private companies" block a group in this way it amounts to a complete ban.

      Do you want to see that kind of power in the hands of the registrars and by extension, in the hands of ICANN? Who decided ICANN was to be the world's arbiter of what kind of speech is allowed on the web? What if they became ideological in some way, wouldn't that lead to censorship of competing ideologies?

      This is how the ACLU in the US used to reason about speech (even nazi speech), before their recent turn away from the concept of free speech for all and not just some.

      1. Frank Oz

        Re: Quick note from easyDNS

        For mine, if you preach intolerance, discrimination and disrespect of others based on race, creed or whatever ... then you deserve to have the same intolerance, discrimination and disrespect centred on you.

        Can't have it both ways. You're hoisted on your own petard as they say.

        The more mature amongst us respect life's reciprocity, the bigoted and intolerant don't.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Quick note from easyDNS

          You also can't have it both ways if you are a business

          You can't say we took a principled stand to ban X and then claim that you are merely hosting Y and don't necessarily support their views. They gave effectively said that they stand behind everyone else they host

          1. Teiwaz Silver badge

            Re: Quick note from easyDNS

            In this case, they are clearly taking note of experiences of hosting company Z, whom X went around saying agreed with their views because they did business.

            They gave effectively said that they stand behind everyone else they host

            No, X, claimed their previous hosting company stood behind them - I'm not surprised any company that wants to be neutral declines them at this point.

          2. markjr

            Re: Quick note from easyDNS

            This is a good point, because, contrary to many other registrars, we also *do* have a reputation for being vigorous advocates for our customers.

            We of course enforce our AUP, and DS would have been in instant violation of 2 specific points of our AUP (violation of the NAP, and knowingly bringing in a DDoS attack).

      2. markjr

        Re: Quick note from easyDNS

        Forgive me, for copying and paste my response to the exact same argument over on our blog:

        There are over thousands of registrars and pretty well anybody can become one (hell, after the drop catching bubble burst you can buy a registrar now for a few thousand bucks).

        They all set their own acceptable use policies and have their own risk tolerance. Somebody running a website that absolutely nobody wants to touch sounds more likely their problem, not the registrars. (Gee, could it possibly be because nobody wants to do business with self-proclaimed fascists spewing utter hatred toward others, including our families and our customers? How unreasonable.)

        Further:

        If DailyStormer really wants somebody to take them on, they’re going to have to pony up a lot of money to do it (expecting some registrar to take on this risk for a $15 annual domain fee is delusional) and at some price level there will either be a taker, or somebody will enter the field to service the need (providing internet infrastructure to Nazis).

        (Maybe DS can empty out that bitcoin wallet of theirs with over $80,000 and buy themselves a registrar)

        As for us, we’re not interested at any price and that is totally our prerogative.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Quick note from easyDNS

        Enter into business? You are aware that to have a web site, one MUST do business with a registrar

        @BJ, you do realise this is a site visited by technical people, right? If they really wanted to, they could just publish an IP address - no DNS needed.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Quick note from easyDNS

          If they really wanted to, they could just publish an IP address - no DNS needed.

          .. which would, of course, move the debate to the next level in the stack: the ISP or web hoster. That said, that may probably be easier to arrange as there are quite a few that knowingly host botnet components. They don't have a problem with reputation.

        2. Ben Tasker Silver badge

          Re: Quick note from easyDNS

          > If they really wanted to, they could just publish an IP address - no DNS needed.

          Or indeed set up a tor HS, or publish your own records into an alt dns zone,

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Quick note from easyDNS

      That is basically what capitalism is all about.

      It would be a bit easier to believe that this was just a hard-headed business decision if your CEO hadn't felt the need to include "as a man in an interracial marriage with a mixed-race child...". I can readily believe that business risk was a major consideration, but it seems pretty clear that it wasn't the only factor.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Quick note from easyDNS

        I can readily believe that business risk was a major consideration, but it seems pretty clear that it wasn't the only factor.

        Actually, developing corporate ethics and sticking to them is also good capitalism, because in some businesses, reputation matters. Add to that that these groups are trouble magnets par excellence and I can't see why everyone is so upset that a business decides not to take their money and prefers them to take their blabbing elsewhere.

        Here's why that isn't censorship: being a Registrar isn't a monopoly. There are plenty others out there. With a degree of irony, that is less the case for the likes of Google, Facebook and Twitter who are already acting as censors in some cases, and it will only get worse. If anyone is desperately looking for a money-greased slippery slopes to complain about, that's where I would send them.

        DNS registrars? Not so much.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Can't have it both ways.

          You want intolerance? You got intolerance. You don't get to target it.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Quick note from easyDNS

      Finally, as I told a few other people who think we are somehow obligated to take on a specific client, it's easy to say that when you are sitting comfortably outside the blast radius.

      I could not have put it any better myself.

  4. Mephistro Silver badge

    The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

    "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

    (Karl Popper)

    1. Geriant

      Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

      "If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all."

      Noam Chomsky

      If you approve of censorship, you need to be pretty confident that the person doing the censoring is doing so in a manner of which you approve. But, I suppose, any number of real-life and would-be dictators are fully in agreement with that sentiment.

      I'll concede that behaviour (i.e. doing things) needs to be regulated, but the only test for speech should be where it is either calumny (calculated, lying libel) or uttered with reckless disregard as to whether or not it is true.

      As Sir Stanley Unwin pointed out: "The enemy of subversive thought is not suppression, but publication: truth has no need to fear the light of day; fallacies wither under it. The unpopular views of today are the commonplaces of tomorrow, and in any case the wise man wants to hear both sides of every question."

      1. Joe Werner Silver badge

        Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

        "Uttered with recipes disregard of whether it is true" [see Holocaust... check]

        "Calculated lying libel" [about the woman killed by the Nazi - not a lawyer, but yes, I guess:check]

        So... do you defend those that want to crush us western infidels / capitalist dogs / whatever as well?

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. Joe Werner Silver badge

          Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

          I meant "complete", not recipes. I hate auto correct and being late to edit...

      2. Florida1920

        Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

        I'll concede that behaviour (i.e. doing things) needs to be regulated, but the only test for speech should be where it is either calumny (calculated, lying libel) or uttered with reckless disregard as to whether or not it is true.

        The problem is, a website is not only a place to speak; it may also serve as a means of instigating violence. DS has shown a predilection to do that. Of course, they're subtle, to avoid clearly breaking the law. But there are plenty of ways to drive the easily manipulated to violence. I think the nutjob who killed the protester in Charlottesville was one of the easily manipulated. The DS's response to the murder does nothing to change my mind. We should keep the situation of DS in its context.

        1. Mad Mike

          Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

          @Florida1920.

          "The problem is, a website is not only a place to speak; it may also serve as a means of instigating violence. DS has shown a predilection to do that. Of course, they're subtle, to avoid clearly breaking the law. But there are plenty of ways to drive the easily manipulated to violence. I think the nutjob who killed the protester in Charlottesville was one of the easily manipulated. The DS's response to the murder does nothing to change my mind. We should keep the situation of DS in its context."

          Unfortunately, this could apply to all sorts of things. To take something very much at the USAs heart.....what about gun websites? Sale of guns, hunting websites etc.? It's a relatively short step to go from killing animals (bears, deer etc.) to maybe turning on somthing else (people) at times of stress. There's plenty of gunsites that actively promote violence (maybe not against people, but other living creatures). What makes them so different? I bet quite a lot of the gun mass murders of recent years visited these websites and maybe even became nuttier because of them. So, does the same sort of thing apply to them? Agreed the bloke in Charlottesville was a complete nutjob, but given the death rate (non-natural) in the USA today, it really was rather unremarkable on the scale of things....

          1. Florida1920

            Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

            @Mad Mike

            There's plenty of gunsites that actively promote violence (maybe not against people, but other living creatures).

            Are you seriously making an equivalence between hunting animals and Nazis?

            Most gun deaths in the U.S. are not the work of an amped-up Nazi devotee. Every murder is remarkable. I doubt you've spent much time reading through DS when it was available, before Charlottesville. Or after. I have, and it made me sick. Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities. Justifying someone's murder because she disagreed with your sick, twisted love affair with you-know-who is too much. If DS's problems were only the beginning of a wave of censorship, some of you might have a point. That hasn't happened and won't. DS was/is evil and is getting what it deserves.

            1. Mad Mike

              Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

              @Florida1920.

              "Are you seriously making an equivalence between hunting animals and Nazis?"

              Firstly, let me say I'm not an animal rights devotee and I eat meat. However.....

              You seem to be missing the similarity between them. The Nazis killed people. Millions of them. However, what's the difference between a human being needlessly killed and an animal being needlessly killed. Both are sentient creatures, both are a product of nature and both feel pain, have thoughts, emotions etc.etc. Separating ourselves from animals is simply demonstrating our arrogance as a species. Man made makes no more sense than lion made, gorilla made or anything else. We're an animal just like all the rest. Maybe more evolved in some ways (some might argue less depending on what you're comparing), but that is all.

              So, hunters who kill animals and then proceed to eat them etc. That's part of nature and we all need to eat. Fair enough. However, there are plenty of people who go out to kill animals simply for the 'fun' (however you want to identify that) of doing so. Maybe it's the challenge, maybe they get pleasure out of it.....I don't know. What's the difference between killing a bear and killing a human? Both are animals, both sentient, both have emotions etc.etc. So, what's the difference? Now, there are plenty of websites that encourage etc. the killing of animals for reasons other than food etc. So, what's the difference?

              So, if we oppose people who are peddling hate against other people because of their colour or sexual preference or whatever, why should we not oppose people who are peddling hate against bears for being bears? I bet there are far more people who kill animals for 'fun' than Nazis on the planet......

              Your previous reply is a great example of a knee jerk based on preconceptions. Actually think of the underlying principles and points and differences. I'm not justifying DS or Nazis at all. I'm just saying there are plenty of other things that are very similar, but we accept as just being 'normal'.

              1. Florida1920

                Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

                what's the difference between a human being needlessly killed and an animal being needlessly killed.

                I'm having a hard time believing I just read this.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

                  what's the difference between a human being needlessly killed and an animal being needlessly killed.

                  Usually a nice fur coat.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

                    If you need a fur coat how it is needless? We're talking about killing for killings sake, not for warmth.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

                      If you need a fur coat how it is needless? We're talking about killing for killings sake, not for warmth.

                      Despite the exceedingly clear risk of starting up another tangent, you don't need to kill an animal to get a warm coat nowadays so yes, I'd call that needless. But, as I said, this is getting as much off target as Bing search results..

                  2. Mad Mike

                    Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

                    @AC

                    "Usually a nice fur coat."

                    Or leather coat. Note, I haven't said what type of leather!!

                    1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

                      Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

                      Long pig?

                2. Mad Mike

                  Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

                  @Florida1920.

                  "I'm having a hard time believing I just read this."

                  So, you're really saying that someone should just be able to go out and kill another sentient being for no other reason than they want to. To provide something like food or warmth is one thing, but there's many who just kill them for trophies or whatever.

                  A human being is an animal, just the same as any other animal. If you believe otherwise, you clearly don't understand nature or biology. Like I said before, look at the statistics for how many killers actually started by needlessly killing animals and you can find a strong corrolation. Is it coincidence? Could be, but the strength of the correlation is very strong. Maybe moving from killing one sentinent animal to another is not much of a step? If so, pro hunting for fun websites could be a breeding ground for creating people who end up killing other people?

                  Human beings are no better than any other animal. We're all part of the same ecosystem and all live by the same rules....those created by nature. We may add our own on top, but that's the same as other animals as well, who create social rules etc as well. Do tell me what really separates us from say some of the higher primates, as the more we learn about them, the more we start looking like each other. The difference is they seem to have less inclination to go around killing each other, which might point people towards rethinking who's most evolved?

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

                    @Mad Mike

                    Do tell me what really separates us from say some of the higher primates

                    I have, as yet not seen any primates develop an Internet or fly to the Moon. I know, the difference is trivial and the dolphins could probably do the above if they could be bothered, but it still IS a difference at present.

                    1. Mad Mike

                      Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

                      @AC

                      "I have, as yet not seen any primates develop an Internet or fly to the Moon. I know, the difference is trivial and the dolphins could probably do the above if they could be bothered, but it still IS a difference at present."

                      Right. So, you're now telling me that it's OK to kill something for fun, as long as it is seen to be intelligent (however you measure that) than you? They haven't developed an internet or flown to the moon, so break out the machine guns and open fire? If we're really that much more intelligent than them, shouldn't that put a greater onus on us rather than just giving us the right to wipe them out (as mankind has done to quite a few species in one way or another)?

                      To be fair, I probably didn't put the question quite right. We're talking about murder etc. which is about society and social issues. So, what's the difference between us and animals from a society and social perspective?

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

                However, what's the difference between a human being needlessly killed and an animal being needlessly killed.

                You don't usually get a nice coat from it? (OK, in the early 70s there were illustrated fake book covers with titles such as "Hanging as a community project" and "101 uses for Human Skin" but -macabre as they were- they were just dark jokes).

                Here's a suggestion. The above statement suggests you best take a moment. Stop typing and just reacting because you're (a) getting awfully far from the original debate and (b) veering sharply into the ridiculous here. Get yourself a cup of coffee (I'd advise decaf as it appears you're getting a tad too excited) and re-read the original debate as well as your answers - give yourself time to think first.

                1. Mad Mike

                  Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

                  @AC

                  "You don't usually get a nice coat from it? (OK, in the early 70s there were illustrated fake book covers with titles such as "Hanging as a community project" and "101 uses for Human Skin" but -macabre as they were- they were just dark jokes)."

                  Although a little historical now, there are certainly examples of human skin being used right up to the end of the 19th century for things like book coverings etc.

                  "Here's a suggestion. The above statement suggests you best take a moment. Stop typing and just reacting because you're (a) getting awfully far from the original debate and (b) veering sharply into the ridiculous here. Get yourself a cup of coffee (I'd advise decaf as it appears you're getting a tad too excited) and re-read the original debate as well as your answers - give yourself time to think first."

                  Ah, so you don't have an answer. So, you resort to condascending speech. I'm actually very on target because I was talking about the core implication of effectively stopping these people having a voice. I'm saying there are plenty of other sites that preach very similar things or attitudes to both human beings and other animals. What I stated much earlier, is why should DS be effectively banned a voice, but not these others. I've never said they should or should not be banned, but am pointing out that plenty of other sites promote exactly the same sort of thing, but seem to avoid the same outcome.

                  So, where does effective censorship stop (by effective, I mean ends up stopping their voice, whether legally or court of public opinion or business needs)? We both hate DSs message. I 100% disagree with them, but if we effectively ban their message, I'm willing to look beyond that simple act and see all the other messages out there that are equally adhorrent in some way. I'm also not prepared to put people above other animals just because they're humans. That distinction is biologically ludicrous. There are plenty of humans I would consider significantly lower than most other animals (including Nazis), but does that mean killing them for no reason is OK?

                  You're looking at this very simply, not seeing the underlying issues ( principles being applied) and just reacting to the fact they're Nazis. A term that has a horrible historical implication. If Nazi is used to mean far right murderers, what about Communist (or choose another) to mean left wing murderers. Like I've said elsewhere, the extreme left has killed just as many as the extreme right, but who's screaming to take down extreme left websites? The reason is simple, but illogical. There isn't a perceived single catch all word to encompass them all and for some reason, left people (even the extreme) are seen as warm and cuddly to many.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

                    Boy, oh boy, you must be getting ulcers often..

                    Right. So, you're now telling me that it's OK to kill something for fun, as long as it is seen to be intelligent (however you measure that) than you? They haven't developed an internet or flown to the moon, so break out the machine guns and open fire?

                    No, I was looking at your comment that animals and humans are alike which is, um, worthy of making fun of, and I'll only stop that the moment a bear gets a driving license. I did not state that the difference enabled me to go and shoot things, that association and inference is exclusively of your own making. The only things I am inclined to shoot are clay pigeons and the occasional drone. As a matter of fact, you infer actually quite a lot from the fact that I disagreed with one of your statements, which, ironically, is a form of bullying used to quell dissent.

                    That is also why I told you to possibly step back from the discussion and regain sight of the bigger picture - the gentle assumption there was that your arguments got silly because you get too sucked in. I see now that, even on reflection, you remain rather silly. Oh well.

                    1. Mad Mike

                      Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

                      @AC.

                      "Boy, oh boy, you must be getting ulcers often..

                      Right. So, you're now telling me that it's OK to kill something for fun, as long as it is seen to be intelligent (however you measure that) than you? They haven't developed an internet or flown to the moon, so break out the machine guns and open fire?

                      No, I was looking at your comment that animals and humans are alike which is, um, worthy of making fun of, and I'll only stop that the moment a bear gets a driving license. I did not state that the difference enabled me to go and shoot things, that association and inference is exclusively of your own making. The only things I am inclined to shoot are clay pigeons and the occasional drone. As a matter of fact, you infer actually quite a lot from the fact that I disagreed with one of your statements, which, ironically, is a form of bullying used to quell dissent.

                      That is also why I told you to possibly step back from the discussion and regain sight of the bigger picture - the gentle assumption there was that your arguments got silly because you get too sucked in. I see now that, even on reflection, you remain rather silly. Oh well."

                      And in your reply, you absolutely prove my posting beautifully. You were saying in your posting that shooting animals for fun was not worthy of banning, yet you take issue with people suggesting others should be killed. I asked what the difference was between animals and humans and you basically said intelligence (I think that's questionable depending on type of intelligence, but that's another matter). Therefore, my deduction from your comments is absolutely spot on. Of course, you're now running from it, because you're beginning to see where you're heading and you don't like it.

                      So, you them revert to name calling and other defences used by people who can't answer the question.

                      I'll help you here. Anyone killing any sentient creature without good reason has no defence. I don't care what the creature is. Someone shooting a bear for fun is just as bad as shooting a human for fun. Both are sentient, both are aware, both have emotions, feel pain etc. Putting humans on a pedestal and assuming we have a different set of rules just because we're humans will one day be blown away by nature. It's a sign of our arrogance as a species. Why should anyone kill anything without good reason?

                      Also, as I've pointed out before, many murderers, especially mass murderers have a big history of killing and torturing animals for fun prior to becoming human killers. So, hunting for fun does seem to be a common precursor to murdering people. Something to think about. There's a world of difference between shooting something in self-defense and shooting something because you want its head above the mantlepiece. From a psychological perspective I mean and it says a lot about the people who do it.

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

                        Also, as I've pointed out before, many murderers, especially mass murderers have a big history of killing and torturing animals for fun prior to becoming human killers

                        OK, for entertainment's sake, I'll bite. Next time we go trekking in some jungle we'll take you along. You'll be feeding the mosquitos so they don't bite us, and we reserve the right to still swat the little blighters. Or are you planning to discriminate against those animals because they're small and plenty available? Or does your anti-murder stance not extend to insects (and if so, why)?

                        Now, let's look at the discussion which is now about animal abuse proving mass murder tendencies vs a simple company refusing service to a bunch of people it deemed a business risk. Don't you think that that is becoming a rather awfully involved argument to maintain your claim that that refusal amounted to censorship?

                        It may be worth reading up on a chap called William of Ockham. In case the name is not familiar, his surname is also often written as "Occam" and the fact that he had no beard may be a hint of what he came up with :).

                        1. Anonymous Coward
                          Anonymous Coward

                          Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

                          @AC Nice strawman, but insects are not alike. They do not have the 'infrastructure' for experiencing pain like mammals do. The question is rather simple: "Can it suffer?"

                        2. Mad Mike

                          Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

                          @ac

                          "OK, for entertainment's sake, I'll bite. Next time we go trekking in some jungle we'll take you along. You'll be feeding the mosquitos so they don't bite us, and we reserve the right to still swat the little blighters. Or are you planning to discriminate against those animals because they're small and plenty available? Or does your anti-murder stance not extend to insects (and if so, why)?"

                          There are two issues at play here. Firstly, can thy feel pain etc. like the creatures I was talking about. The second and by far the most important was I said killing without reason. This means killing for fun or the challenge etc. If you're being bitten to death by mosquitos, you're not killing them for no reason, just the same as shooting a bear if you attack it is perfectly reasonable. Similarly, as mosquitos are a significant risk to human health, trying to stop them spreading malaria by killing them is actually self-defense. However, going out, getting a bear in your rifle sights and opening fire from 500 yards away is not.

                          "Now, let's look at the discussion which is now about animal abuse proving mass murder tendencies vs a simple company refusing service to a bunch of people it deemed a business risk. Don't you think that that is becoming a rather awfully involved argument to maintain your claim that that refusal amounted to censorship?"

                          No, what I'm doing is truly thinking the core underlying principles and playing them through to a conclusion rather than knee jerking a position based on arrogance, your belief your morals are superior to everyone elses and your intolerance to other views no matter how distasteful WE might find them. There are plenty of hunting sites that promote killing animals for fun. There is a known correlation between people that do this and murderers. Therefore, are these sites no promoting activities that causes murders (incitement) just as much as the DS website? Not so directly, but the end game is the same. So, why should they not be banned?

            2. Mad Mike

              Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

              @Florida1920.

              "Most gun deaths in the U.S. are not the work of an amped-up Nazi devotee."

              No, they're the work of people amped up about something else. Right to life (abortion for instance), gang warfare etc.etc. Is one better than the other? What about one gang puttings stuff up about killing members of another gang. Is that any better?

              " Every murder is remarkable."

              Totally agree. Ever murder should be remarkable, but unfortunately, in this world, that simply isn't so.

              "I doubt you've spent much time reading through DS when it was available, before Charlottesville. Or after. I have, and it made me sick. Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities. Justifying someone's murder because she disagreed with your sick, twisted love affair with you-know-who is too much."

              I've never supported anything they've said. I've just said there are plenty of other sites that promote murder (why does that have to be against another person rather than a sentient being?) in various ways, but are quite able to continue. Why? If you look into the statistics, you might find an interesting correlation between people who hunt animals for fun and murders......especially mass murder.

              "If DS's problems were only the beginning of a wave of censorship, some of you might have a point. That hasn't happened and won't. DS was/is evil and is getting what it deserves."

              How many times has this been said in history!! Read through history and it clearly shows you're wrong. Censorship only goes one way. More and more. In the 19th century, there was pretty close to no censorship, then look at the history of the 20th century and see more and more enacted. I bet those that implemented the first would have said exactly the same thing.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

            Unfortunately, this could apply to all sorts of things.

            .. which is where we stray off the actual debate and land in whatabouterism territory.

            There are only two aspects to this matter:

            1 . EasyDNS is 100% entitled to decide for themselves who they do business with. The fact that they motivate that decision is nice and offers insight into the company's ethical stance, but. they. don't. have. to.

            2. That DS has a hard time finding anyone to host them is their problem. It creates no obligation on the part of any Registrars to take them on. I'm sure they would find someone if they threw enough money at it so the happy recipient can shore up their defences against the inevitable onslaught of trouble that follows them in their wake, but I don't see why not accepting their business is anything but a simple business decision.

            The rest is mere fluff.

            1. h4rm0ny

              Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

              >>1 . EasyDNS is 100% entitled to decide for themselves who they do business with. The fact that they motivate that decision is nice and offers insight into the company's ethical stance, but. they. don't. have. to.

              100% is a pretty high degree of certainty! If the principle of right to choose who you provide services to is an absolute, does it extend to people refusing service to people based on skin colour? Religious beliefs? Sexual orientation? Nationality? Could an email provider refuse service to an individual whose beliefs they disagreed with? Could a phone company? Once you decide, as you have done, that companies have a 100% right to choose who they provide service to, you've enabled a lot of behaviour I suspect you do not actually like.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

                100% is a pretty high degree of certainty! If the principle of right to choose who you provide services to is an absolute, does it extend to people refusing service to people based on skin colour? [etc]

                Well, 99.999% then. You're trying to reframe THIS decision, which was a perfectly valid business decision. There is as yet no law against discriminating against hate groups and I somehow don't expect there one to be, even in the most enlightened free speech countries. With respect to other business decisions, that depends on the prevailing law and your ability to prove the motivation was a breach thereof. Furthermore, the established track record of EasyDNS (as in "evidence of stuff they actually did" versus pointless allusions of stuff they may or may not do) speaks against them being a bastion of censorship.

      3. handleoclast

        Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

        @Geriant

        You hit the nail on the head with the Chomsky quote.

        Bugger Popper's paradox. Even if he's right, he's wrong. If you decide you won't tolerate intolerance then you're intolerant. Simple as that. There are other ways of fighting intolerance than becoming intolerant yourself. They may ultimately (in the very long term) be ineffective, but in that case both options lead to the same end and the only question is do you get there by keeping your principles or abandoning them.

        To the argument I'll throw in John Stuart Mill's On Liberty where he argues at great length that we should never censor minority views. Go read it.

        I'll also throw in Voltaire's example. He wanted his enemies to publish their opinions so that he could destroy them using their own words and arguments.

        I'll toss in a cliche too: "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."

        Implicit in the freedoms enshrined in certain jurisdictions regarding speech, religion and political views is that you have the right to be wrong. Not to do wrong but to think wrong. You can think and say what the hell you like. There may be legal consequences if what you say is defamatory or if it incites criminal acts, but otherwise your speech should be legal (no matter how fucktarded it is).

        Almost orthogonal to this is the first amendment to the US constitution. That applies only to the government. The government cannot apply prior restraint to speech (they can't prevent you saying anything). The government may deal with your speech post facto if, for example, it incites violence. The courts, so far, have mostly held that the first amendment prohibits the government from prosecuting you for saying something they don't like (mostly, because books saying that marijuana does no harm have been prosecuted in the past).

        Individuals and corporations, in general, are not constrained by the first amendment. You can say what you want but you can't make a company rent you a megaphone to say it. Freedom of speech is not freedom to force others to hear it or to force others to sell/lease/give you the tools you need.

        Different considerations would apply if the internet in the US had "common carrier" status. As I understand it, it doesn't. So registrars and hosting companies can discriminate against certain customers.

        For those who think censoring nazis is a good thing, consider the current US gov't. It comprises people who like neonazis (or at least pretend to so that they can get votes from neonazi sympathisers). It comprises people who think abortion is always bad (even for incest or when both mother and baby will die if an abortion is not performed). It comprises people who think universal health care is bad (and are defunding advertising to get people to sign up for Obamacare). It comprises people who think global warming is a hoax. Do you want to set a precedent of censoring internet speech to these people?

      4. Mephistro Silver badge
        Meh

        Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:(@ Geriant)

        "If you approve of censorship..."

        If this censorship were being carried out by a government, I'd mostly agree with you and Chomsky (who, coincidentally, IMO is both a genius and a nice person). What we're seeing here is a different beast, i.e. Society performing censorship against groups it considers evil.

        If someone puts up a website defending kiddie fiddling, rape or the Holocaust, he/she can expect to receive a similar treatment, and with good reason.

        I know, I know. Sometimes this mechanism is abused/subverted, and there are countries were it's used to crush minorities and dissenters (e.g. most Muslim countries). But in the case of Western nations some Societal censorship is good. You have to draw the line somewhere. Nazis and the KKK, FFS!

        Regarding Unwin's quote in your last paragraph ("The enemy of subversive thought is not suppression, but publication...) I find it al little bit naive. In recent* times, we've seen several examples of how deluges of misinformation and hate speech can decide the result of elections and referendums.

        Note*: And also in not so recent times. The rise of Nazism in Germany is also a good example, even though back then they didn't have Internet.

  5. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

    Dark Web Maybe

    My only concern with registrar shopping by TDS is that will probably drive them to the Dark Web were they will be harder to monitor. Sometimes it is better to let the real slimes have their store front where they can be monitored than to drive deep into the woods where they are more difficult to monitor. Otherwise, I find their problems amusing in an ironic way.

    1. Florida1920

      Re: Dark Web Maybe

      They're showing up at an onion.link URL linked from Google. But wherever they go, the people who monitor such sites will find them. It's hard to stay under the radar when you tout your site as "The World's Most Genocidal Republican Website."

      1. DougS Silver badge
        Unhappy

        Re: Dark Web Maybe

        Hey I suppose that branding is smart strategy. As they bounce around from hosting provider to hosting provider, their users just have to google that phrase and will find them once google's crawler has reindexed them at their new home.

      2. Dave C

        Re: Dark Web Maybe

        Actually the Daily Stormer acquired a new Austrian domain four days ago and are available at that as well as via the onion link. We'll see how long this new domain lasts. The registrar of their previous Albanian domain (purchased through a reseller) booted them off after a couple of days.

        Do I care about the free speech of this site ? Let's see. The Daily Stormer's troubles began when they posted some vile abuse about Heather Heyer who died at Charlottesville. They blame Heyer for the consequences - losing their original domain name, being booted from several domain registrars etc. Heyer being dead they have decided her family should be "held responsible".

        So they have run stories urging their supporters to engage in the online abuse of Heather Heyer's mother. "We need to TROLL STORM!" "This is war mode now. We are going on the offensive." Her mother "is going to wish she never would have fucked with the white race." This is accompanied by disgusting abuse.

        Far from "defending to the death" their right to "free speech" I'd be more than happy to push them over the cliff.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Dark Web Maybe

          "[...] a new Austrian domain [...]"

          Very interesting. IIRC Austria has some specific banning laws about subjects in the likely context.

        2. Nick Kew

          citation needed

          @Dave C

          Your post is a lot more specific than most in this discussion.

          Did you visit the daily stormer website to inform yourself? Or are you posting allegations (whether your own or a third-party) that may or may not bear any relationship to reality?

          1. Dave C

            Re: citation needed

            Yes I have visited the site to see for myself. The three quotes in my third paragraph were copied from it. I would have quoted more from that item but it was quite difficult to find complete sentences which didn't contain some form of obnoxious abuse.

            I note with interest that since I posted my comment their Austrian domain address is now returning a "502 Bad Gateway" message. A story today at the Austrian news site derstandard.at suggests that the domain had been set up to block access from German and Austrian IP addresses - presumably an attempt to avoid legal issues in those countries. It also says that nic.at, the domain registrar for .at, were aware of the situation and looking into it. Perhaps the "502 Bad Gateway" message means they have been booted off this domain as well.

            http://derstandard.at/2000063882948/Neonazi-Webseite-DailyStormer-wechselt-auf-at-Adresse

            1. Dave C

              Re: citation needed

              And domain registrar Nic.at have confirmed that their Austrian domain name has indeed been terminated

              http://www.wienerzeitung.at/dossiers/netzpolitik/916126_US-Neonaziseite-Daily-Stormer-war-voruebergehend-oesterreichisch.html

              Good.

            2. James O'Shea

              Re: citation needed

              "Yes I have visited the site to see for myself. The three quotes in my third paragraph were copied from it. I would have quoted more from that item but it was quite difficult to find complete sentences which didn't contain some form of obnoxious abuse."

              oh, yeah, no doubt about that at all.

          2. James O'Shea

            Re: citation needed

            "Did you visit the daily stormer website to inform yourself?"

            I have. His statement is accurate, so far as it goes. The site is really much, much, MUCH worse than he made it seem.

            "Or are you posting allegations (whether your own or a third-party) that may or may not bear any relationship to reality?"

            Why don't you go and have a look for yourself, assuming that you can find them? It's getting to be a lot more difficult to keep track of them, which is A Good Thing.

        3. h4rm0ny

          Re: Dark Web Maybe

          There's a concern here which is that these registrars are largely refusing service because of PR fallout and boycotts. The scenario where sufficient public pressure denies people the ability to purchase a service is a pretty concerning one. I'm sure everyone can think of something they wouldn't want bullied off the Internet by an angry twitter mob that is a likely target.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Dark Web Maybe

            There's a concern here which is that these registrars are largely refusing service because of PR fallout and boycotts.

            I would like to refer you again to the EasyDNS blog. They have caught flack in the past for hosting controversial sites, and their motivation was exactly because they do believe in free speech. It suggests that the Armageddon of Censorship™ you are afraid of is as yet not really happening.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Marketplace of ideas

    Nazi ideology is as valid an intellectual movement as rancid, spoiled meat is for general consumption. There's a reason why health codes prevent vendors from selling dangerous food under the guise of 'right of the customer to choose'. Nazi ideology falls under that same rubric. It is dangerous to civilized societies to allow its presence or growth.

    1. h4rm0ny

      Re: Marketplace of ideas

      >> It is dangerous to civilized societies to allow its presence or growth.

      And which solution to that do we as a society prefer? Mockery and public refutation of its claims? Or saying: "Hey, government and companies - here's a big stick, please use it on the Bad Guys only". Also, the stick is a big can of paint that only covers over the problem.

      It's a weird metaphor, but I think you see where I'm going.

  7. Captain DaFt

    - Jeftovic therefore created the idea of “'Martian separatists' to capture the entire realm of possibilities for 'X' because any real world example would probably 'trigger' somebody, somewhere.” -

    But then he receives a very angry, very incomprehensible, complaint from amanfromMars, and is very confused.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Stop making fun of the Martian Separatists!

      The struggle is real!

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Discrimination or not...

    So when do businesses legally get to refuse customers without being accused of discriminatory behaviour? http://www.christianpost.com/news/california-christian-baker-forced-to-take-down-website-after-refusing-to-make-gay-wedding-cake-197046/

    1. Mystic Megabyte Silver badge

      Re: Discrimination or not...

      Yes that's a tricky one, at least neither party were advocating genocide. But what would happen if a gay baker gets a request for a Nazi themed cake?

      If it were me I'd tell the customer to feck off decline the order.

      1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

        Re: Discrimination or not...

        For what it's worth, I've had an order declined at a custom mug manufacturers once.

        Me and some colleagues had a whip-round and wanted to get some hardcore gay porn printed on a mug for our boss as a joke.

        They accepted a toned down version.

    2. Ben Tasker Silver badge

      Re: Discrimination or not...

      So when do businesses legally get to refuse customers without being accused of discriminatory behaviour?

      When the basis of their discrimination is an attribute/quality that's protected by law. See, that wasn't so hard.

      You can't be discriminated against for being gay, or for your race (and in some places, age), but you can be for being a jackboot wearing racist dickhead. It's actually quite simple.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Discrimination or not...

        but you can be for being a jackboot wearing racist dickhead.

        You can also be for being associated with the communist party - like by organising a union or complaining about working conditions

  9. Kaltern

    It's quite simple really.

    If you are not opposed to this domain being hosted, you are a Nazi sympathiser, regardless of your good intentions for free speech etc.

    There is a reason why Nazi-ism is completely abhorred by the vast majority of the human race.

    Whats next? Allowing a domain such as 'thelittlekiddie.org' (I made that up. I hope.) to be hosted in the name of free speech and democracy?

    Censorship is a necessary evil. I know - I do it for a living. If only a fraction of the stuff me and those who do what I do got out into the wonderful world of social media... well, let's just say I think a LOT of people here might finally understand.

    There is no place in the world for Nazi's, except as a footnote in history outlining Humanity's many mistakes.

    1. codejunky Silver badge

      @ Kaltern

      "There is a reason why Nazi-ism is completely abhorred by the vast majority of the human race."

      Yes. This is correct and as a result these people would have difficulty having their views accepted in the real world. So why do we fear them and insist they must be kept away from people? The reason people have such a problem with nazism is because we remember it, we discuss it and we critique it. It is a subject we discuss and analyse to the point that WW2 basically lives on the history channels.

      I do however have a problem with people opposing nazism when they oppose only the label. There is an automatic learned reflex against the label nazi but not communist (in Europe). The nazi take over of Germany is rightfully hated and watched against, but yet communists are not? The concentration camps and gas chambers for mass extermination are hated, gulags not so much. Fear of the right wing parties for any even minor action or belief which can be even marginally compared to nazi is exploited, not so much the left and communist.

      The worst part is we were happy to crush nazis, yet persist in this daft notion of socialist where it has inflicted more death and suffering around the world than nazism and continues to do so! I read insane stupidity (some of you may have also seen it) where an uneducated idiot writes "far right gave us *insert evil* while far left gives us *insert milk and honey*". And unfortunately there are idiots (I find often its HE students) who actually believe this and display a level of ignorance just as insulting as denying the holocaust.

      But when people forget and the evil is allowed to shrink out of view people forget. People think it is exciting and new and a solution to problems. As far as I can see there are two ways to deal with such a problem-

      1) Brush it under the carpet and hope it dies out (often only the memory dies out, the desire remains in the shadows waiting for its time).

      2) Education. Honesty. Discussion. Only by understanding the problems and why it was such a problem can we actively choose to avoid it.

  10. Nick Kew
    Flame

    Two different arguments

    It seems to me this discussion confuses different arguments:

    1. Basic free speech. Should Daily Stormer have it at all?

    2. Corporate decisions about providing a platform for free speech.

    3. Actions against free speech.

    I'm with Voltaire on Daily Stormer having a voice (not that I want to listen to them[1]). I'm also with corporations having the right to say "not on our platform", though I'll cry Hypocrisy if those corporations also make claims about universality or about being champions of free speech.

    What is much more sinister is if, as hinted here, corporations are being intimidated into denying free speech. Even to real Nazis (if indeed they really are both nationalist and socialist). Yet we know that kind of thing does happen, much more widely. I was first aware of it back in my schooldays, when the news carried semi-regular stories of peaceful marches by one political faction being disrupted by violence from another, and then banned for fear of that violence.

    [1] Unless in the context of this story itself: if I post here, I should really take a look so I know what I'm talking about. Better do that from the relative anonymity of public wifi, if the Great Firewall will let me.

    1. sabroni Silver badge

      Re: corporations are being intimidated into denying free speech

      Nazis don't want free speech, they want to kill people who are different from them. So does the right to free speech override the right to life?

      1. Antron Argaiv Silver badge

        Re: corporations are being intimidated into denying free speech

        The only right of free speech that exists, in the US, is your right to speak freely without the Government shutting you down.

        You have no right to compel anyone to assist you in speaking freely. And you have no right to speak freely without consequences from non-Governmental entities.

  11. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

    Not censorship

    I'm still amazed how many people misunderstand the meaning of "censorship", or think that freedom of speech means something more than just "you won't be prevented from saying it by the government". That's all it is - it's a very, very low bar. No-one has to help them do it, and although they have a right to say it, I'm very much OK with private citizens or corporations trying to stop them exercising that right.

    The Daily Stormer can stand on a soapbox on a street corner and shout like all the other nutjobs. Presuming they can find someone to sell them a soapbox.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Not censorship

      Except the corporations are now much more effective censors than the government.

      Google and Facebook block their posts, then Visa and Mastercard stop processing their donations.

      Then next year, after a quiet word from the Whitehouse, they extend this policy to blocking Wikileaks, then the ACLU, then Greenpeace, then the democratic party.

      1. h4rm0ny

        Re: Not censorship

        >>Then next year, after a quiet word from the Whitehouse, they extend this policy to blocking Wikileaks, then the ACLU, then Greenpeace, then the democratic party.

        I can give you a "this year" example. Criticism of Israel is legally part of the definition of anti-Semitism in the USA and the same definition was adopted in the UK.

        https://www.opendemocracy.net/david-rosenberg/uk-government-new-anti-semitism-definition-conflates-racism-with-valid-criticism

        So if you have legitimate criticism of Israel, that's legally Hate Speech. Which is blackly hilarious if you happen to be one of the many Jewish critics of Israel.

        1. Mad Mike

          Re: Not censorship

          @h4rm0ny

          "I can give you a "this year" example. Criticism of Israel is legally part of the definition of anti-Semitism in the USA and the same definition was adopted in the UK."

          Precisely the problem. These things grow arms and legs and before long, it's gone places you never intended or believed it could. It's also used as a weapon by people of that kind of mind.

        2. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

          Re: Not censorship

          But it goes the other way too - Labour's anti-semitism problem is always dressed up as anti-Israel.

  12. shawnfromnh

    You can bet they won't ban BLM basically the black Klan or LaRasa either because they are not white racist but minority groups and according to the liberals minorities races cannot be racist, total bullshit. Not for the Klan but if they do it to one then they should do it to all of these types of groups.

    1. Antron Argaiv Silver badge
      Happy

      The Black Klan?

      Black sheets instead of white?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Black sheets instead of white?

        That's going to make it a challenge to find the eye holes :)

  13. Jim 59

    Morals

    "If you are not opposed to this domain being hosted, you are a Nazi sympathiser, regardless of..." - careful @Kaltern. Becoming what one despises, and all that.

    I agree that cencership is a necessary evil. But this is more about personal ethics than state censorship. I am strongly for free speech, but would not provide my contracting services to an organization like Stormer. Would you? Of course not. These companies feel the same way, and have done the right thing in my view.

  14. Richard Parkin

    First they came for the nazis ...

    Just sayin'.

    1. sabroni Silver badge

      Re: First they came for the nazis ...

      Just sayin' you don't understand.

      That poem in full:

      First they came for the nazis

      Once they'd gone the rest of us just got along with each other

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: First they came for the nazis ...

      LOL, that's really dark humour :) You bad, bad man..

      1. markjr

        Re: First they came for the nazis ...

        Yeah I saw that comment and was about to post a rebuttal but had to leave.... then I'm in the car and it hit me and I just burst out laughing. It was brilliant, really.

  15. PapaD

    Free Speech

    That word, i do not think it means what you think it means.

    In this instance, the US right to free speech just means that their free speech will not be abridged/removed/prevented by their government - (First amendment)

    Non-governmental organisations are under no obligation to care at all about your right to freedom of speech under the law.

    However, in this case, its essentially a business decision, one caused by TDS - since the last people to host them got accused (by TDS) of supporting their white supremacist views - which has now meant that any further registrar won't work with TDS because they don't want all the flack that comes with being branded a white supremacist supporting organisation.

    And, since being a white supremacist isn't a supported classification under the discrimination laws, they are fine to do so.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Free Speech

      And when a baker decides not to make a gay wedding cake - is that just a business decision too?

      1. Antron Argaiv Silver badge

        Re: Free Speech

        "And when a baker decides not to make a gay wedding cake - is that just a business decision too?"

        Yes, it is, but it happens to be illegal due to the fact that sexual preference is a protected class in some states. And you can protest it by going to court...and losing:

        https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

        Also, don't use your religious beliefs as an excuse to be a dick.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Free Speech

          So can a gay baker refuse to make a straight cake if they are the protected class?

          Is it the protected class of the customer or the business that matters?

          Can a Jewish baker refuse to make a christmas cake without violating the protected class of the customer or is it illegal for the customer to ask the baker to break a commandment?

          1. Mad Mike

            Re: Free Speech

            @Yet Another Anonymous Coward.

            "So can a gay baker refuse to make a straight cake if they are the protected class?

            Is it the protected class of the customer or the business that matters?

            Can a Jewish baker refuse to make a christmas cake without violating the protected class of the customer or is it illegal for the customer to ask the baker to break a commandment?"

            Absolutely. This is what's so dangerous about giving certain people special protection based on some sort of attribute. Also, even when protections are put in place for all parties (say sex discrimination), society and the legal system often applies it only or more one way than the other. Try being a man going to an employment tribunal for sex discrimination, compared to a woman doing the same. Whole different experience.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's a tough one this. I think most people like the idea of shutting down supremacist websites but the question of principle is the freedom that a corporation should have to choose its customers on ethical grounds.

    So let's say a hosting provider said it would not host far left sites, or Muslim sites, or gay marriage sites because of their ethics - would that be okay too?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      No.

      It's just genocide we want to stop.

    2. PapaD

      "So let's say a hosting provider said it would not host far left sites, or Muslim sites, or gay marriage sites because of their ethics - would that be okay too?"

      Well. no, because sexual orientation and religious affiliation are both protected characteristics, and to discriminate based on them is illegal.

      Being an asshole is not a protected characteristic, as a business owner i am totally within my legal rights to not do business with assholes, up until being an asshole becomes a protected characteristic, whereupon i am no longer allowed to base my decisions to do business with people upon whether or not they are an asshole.

  17. Prosthetic Conscience
    Flame

    Why don't they use some Russian or Ukranian registrar there are plenty of neo-nazi sympathizers over there (not to mention all the alt-right trolling factories are based predominately there too). It will be a fitting metaphor for the subtle online dismantling of western left-ish values by vocal American *-right and Russian/Kremlin professional trolls.

    Cognitive dissonance is strong with those types (referring to regional history)..

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

  18. Palpy

    Notes on free speech and legality

    Obviously, whether to allow hate speech on a hosting platform run by a corporation is different from whether to allow someone to speechify in the town square. (And obviously, explicitly expressed speech like the Daily Stormer or Stormfront is different from baking a cake. Implying equality between the two is rather simple-minded.)

    But in the USA, even the right to free speech in public forums is not unlimited.

    "Fighting words" and lewd or obscene speech are not protected. The Sedition Act made it illegal to make false, critical statements about the government, and the Smith Act made it illegal to advocate the overthrow of the government.

    Notably, one of the most-quoted standards of US political philosophy is the concept that "all men are created equal." (Yes, in the time of founding dads, that ideal was very far from realized. But it is implicit in nearly all matters of citizen rights in the US.) The foundational philosophy of Nazism and white supremacy, on the other hand, is that all men are not created equal: pinky-beige people are supposedly better than brown ones. Books like "The Turner Diaries", a revered narrative among white supremacists, are fictionalized accounts of governmental overthrow by said whitey-tighties.

    The point being, there are legal limits to speech in the US, and in its rhetoric white supremacy treads close to the line of a couple of them: false criticism of the government ("Government is run by a Jewish cabal!") and advocating overthrow of the government ("Must replace corrupt US government with proper Nazi system!")

    Personally, I think Jeftovic's rationale was pragmatic and sensible: Hosting this group's site would have created a troublesome situation for his company, and probably would have impacted their profits when other groups began avoiding our platform. To my knowledge, services are not legally required to host hate-speech or pornography, or solicitations for illegal acts such as murder-for-hire or human trafficking. He's within the pale.

    On the lighter side -- go ahead, punch a Nazi. Your gran would have done.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Lovely arguments raging here..

    It's rather ironic that people see this whole "is it censorship or not" argument as binary but I guess that's what you get with technical people. In truth, it depends.

    easyDNS made a judgement call, Whether you deem that censorship or not depends very much on your opinion what censorship is, where you personally draw the line and what the law dictates. That doesn't immediately imply that easyDNS will now bar anything controversial (nor does their history show such a trend), it appears to do so on a case by case basis.

    You can disagree with it, but you can't deny they have the right to make that call, irrespective of motivation.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Lovely arguments raging here..

      "It's rather ironic that people see this whole "is it censorship or not" argument as binary but I guess that's what you get with technical people. In truth, it depends."

      So the free speech argument is non-binary!

      No wonder the alt-right is confused...

  20. Chris King Silver badge

    "Martian Separatists"

    Dear easyDNS

    Why does easyDNS provide services to the Mysterons, a known terrorist organization ?

    Regards

    Paul Metcalfe (Captain)

    Spectrum

    P.S.

    The imagery of Captain Black dropping his trousers and throwing his feces at the police has put me off my dinner.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019