Google bins white supremacist site after it tries to host-hop away from GoDaddy Google's become the latest company to let alt-right site The Daily Stormer know it's not welcome to register its domain. GoDaddy yesterday gave the site 24 hours notice to move on after it published vile comments about Heather Heyer, the woman killed during protests in Charlottesville, Virginia. A Google statement says the …
Surprisingly, given how often it's been mentioned, shouting fire in a theatre for fun has never been litigated before, so is still uncertain under the law whether it's actually a limitation. It was a comment by a judge in one of their rulings, but wasn't actually directly related to the ruling so was never actually investigated
I think you are correct. As far as I know there's no law against 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' and that its merely an example of the limitations of the law protecting free speech.
The point is that courts used it as an example that not all speech is protected and that there are limitations.
You have the right to speak your mind, however when its used to intentionally cause harm that you can run afoul to the law...
The trouble is that its a very difficult case to make.
For example.... you have BLM (Black Lives Matter) and their protests where they have been recorded promoting violence against police. In Dallas 5 police officers were shot and killed protecting BLM marchers by a protester who wanted to kill police.
Can you charge BLM for their actions? (There is a civil lawsuit, but its not a criminal prosecution)
You would have to show that the gunman actions were tied directly to the prior marches and their calls for death to the 'pigs'.
Its not an easy thing to do.
Yes it was decided. The comment was made as an example in the opinion of the Supreme Court ruling that there are limits to Free Speech. That opinion has since been partially over turned by a 1969 decision that said only speech that incites imminent criminal action is illegal. So, unfortunately, as long as these scumbags are peaceful their hateful, dangerous ignorance is protected speech.
@ mark 85 " I'm thinking civil discourse is lost on certain groups."
.
i'm thinking the principle of actual free speech is lost on most sheeple...
.
the bedrock right of free speech is fundamental to maintaining all other rights...
that takes precedence over ANYONE's and EVERYONE's pwecious, pwecious feelz...
suck it up, buttercup...
Shutting down Nazis isn't about anyone's precious feelings. It's about stopping the spread of an ideology that is quite explicit about what it wants to do to anyone who doesn't belong. And no-one gets to quote "Godwin's law" this time; these people really are Nazis, they shout Nazi slogans, copy Nazi imagery, and most importantly, want to follow Nazi ideas about race.
I'm not sure that argument holds water. Allowing people with really unpopular opinions speak their mind generally doesn't end up with them gaining a lot of support, just a lot of derision and mocking. Regardless of how hateful their message is, letting them talk about it makes it easier to combat.
"I think you're missing the fact that the first amendment refers to the Government not restricting your right to free speech.
Google is not the government (yet), so they can do whatever they want in this regard, provided they aren't violating anti-discrimination laws."
I continue to be worried by this - often made - argument: In theory you have a right to free speech, but in practice, big corporations can always take it away from you. This is not a thing to rejoice over just because it's happening to people you disagree with. What happens when it's your opinion that is deemed to reduce advertising revenue?
Mark,
This is a bit of a Gordian knot. (Note the historical reference...)
Germany had outlawed the use of the Nazi symbol and anything pertaining to Hitler and his Third Reich.
(No need to cite Goodwin, we're discussing history)
The US has the first amendment which means that the US Government can't stop or interfere with any group's right to peacefully protest. While I abhor their message, I will defend their right to say it and protect them from persecution from expressing their opinion. That's the American way.
However, Google is still a private company that hasn't been found to be a monopoly. So its within their right to refuse hosting a site which promotes hate. Same too for Go Daddy. Having said that, I wish that they wouldn't. The reason is that it will force the group(s) to go underground and harder to monitor. Aka hosting their message on the 'dark web'. (Site that look innocent yet go to an image, click on it and enter a secret password to unlock other portions of the site... ) Its important that groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center be able to monitor these groups.
While you speak of civil discourse, things get confusing. Do you condone the violence caused by those protesting the protest? Its one thing to shout down the speaker, its another to come armed ready for violence and to attack the protest.
Here, the police and the local mayor let the people down because they didn't stop the violence. Things did get out of hand.
Trump condemned the violence, on both sides. Yet he was criticized until he strongly condemned the 'white supremacists' and then it was too late. The truth is that if you're going to allow 'anti-fascists' (who act more like fascists they claim to hate) or the BLM which have called for violence against police... both groups have shown acts of violent protests... to not face condemnation, then you can't condemn the 'white supremacists'. To do so would be not only hypocritical but also encourage further acts of illegal 'civil discourse'.
Sorry for the long post. The point is that too many feel justified in their use of violence.
The largest irony is that the protest was about protecting the statues and the historical significance of the men and as a reminder to the American Civil War. If you think about it... the Germans and other countries kept Hitler's death camps around as a reminder of the Holocaust. They could easily have been torn down and plowed over. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
This is why the whole situation is both prophetic and ironic.
I don't blame Trump, but I do blame Congress, the MSM, and of course our education system where the significance of history is being lost and not taught. Many here were not alive back in 1977 or old enough to understand the significance of the Neo-Nazi march on Skokie IL. Its a shame. IIRC, the number of police in riot gear outnumbered the marchers.
While you speak of civil discourse, things get confusing. Do you condone the violence caused by those protesting the protest? Its one thing to shout down the speaker, its another to come armed ready for violence and to attack the protest.
Civil discourse to me is not violence or physical confrontation. Those last two are intimidation and not discourse. I do not condone the violence. If we, as a country open the can of worms by banning the speech of those we disagree with, then we have sunk to their level. Once we start down that sloop there's no telling where it will stop.
I do agree with you. Sadly, the group that got noticed in this Confederacy statue/memorial conflict was an extremist group and the back lash is bound to do no justice to the memorials or to the people.
Let's go back further to the Civil Rights marches. Or the Labor Unions marches of the late 1800's. I daresay that history is repeating itself... over and over and over.
I think the point is that the act of creating a site that doesn't call for violence but supports an opinion, regardless of how vile you think it is, should be allowed. While the government legally has no right to hinder the freedom of expression, corporations should allow it if it doesn't violate their ToS. So if you allow BLM to have a web site, PETA, etc... then you should allow these so called 'White Supremacists' to have their web site. (Keeping above ground makes it easier to track... which is another separate benefit).
Its when these sites call for violence that they run afoul of the law and should be shut down. (e.g. ISIS)
That's what is being said.
If you go to the Fox News site, Tucker Carlson had a brilliant commentary on Google as well as had the Google Engineer on to discuss his termination. Regardless of your political leanings, its a really good and thought provoking piece.
The reason I mention it is that the removal of the 'white supremacist' site shows the arbitrary nature of what is and is not allowed to be hosted.
I am uncomfortable with domain registars pulling sites for political reasons. Unless I haven't paid my bills, or your have a court document... you shouldn't be pulling my domain for ANY reason.
This is one of those "Slippery slopes" where the big domain hosts are going to be pressured to pull domains of anyone the ruling political class doesn't like.
This is a bad thing, regardless of your political alignment.
I just want a nice amoral registar and host who will keep my site up, in return for the money I give them. Politics of the day be damned.
I am uncomfortable with domain registars pulling sites for political reasons.
If you think that this is anything to do with politics, then there is no hope. This is rather more serious than politics, it's more a measure of how the patience and tolerance of a normal civilised society is limited and whether it refuses to be exploited by people who have (in most peoples' opinion) foresaken any rights to express themselves, stand for election, etc.
To say that this is about politics means that these people should be allowed to participate in politics. You know, stand for election, campaign, go door to door. That didn't work out so well last time such a group of people were allowed.
The great fear, and severe danger, is that these people will be able to use the US legal system to overcome any attempt to disbar them from politics. That would be supremely dangerous.
Remember that Americans have already been illogical in voting for Trump; imagine if someone beguiling from a group such as this starts appearing on the campaign trail, starts turning on the charisma, etc.
What America needs right now is a united political leadership that comes out and nips this in the bud. Unfortunately...
It's also going to be a severe test of the Social Networks. They need to keep their networks squeaky clean. It's no good just partially surpressing posts and comments from people like this. Trouble is that I can't see how they can do this as they currently operate. And the normal Citizenry cannot help; e.g. a closed Facebook group is not something that you can protest at, report, etc without being inside it.
The irony that there are actually people here arguing that some parts of their society should amongst other things be disbarred from expressing their opinions or engaging in politics, because they're fascists, is profound. The way to deal with these people is to show them up for the odious losers they are, not resort to the kind of authoritarian repression they would argue for - and in the process turn them into some kind of glamourous oppressed resistance. It's not as if they argument should be hard to make - simple demographics mean the attraction of a white supremacist/KKK/neo-Nazi "movement" is always going to be right out on the margins.
Until they're NOT. People act on their hearts first, their brains second, especially in a crisis, and evil can be extremely charismatic. Remember, Adolf Hitler was ELECTED. Do you really want civilization to be torn down by a charismatic despot able to sway the stupid?
Do you think that banning old Adolf's web-site would have removed him from the equation? Highly unlikely. In all likelihood, he and his supporters would have found it empowering. They'd have then used the fact that they were being censored as proof of their being right. And this would have driven more of the disenfranchised to their cause. Removing a medium of publication is analogous to putting a t-shirt on over a skin lesion. The cancer is still there, it will still spread, you just cannot see it.
"simple demographic trends" across the West should maybe make white people wake up across the West and THINK whether it is really such a good idea to be throwing such labels around against people who might actually have a point concerning white people on projection to lose all major homelands within mere decades.
who might actually have a point concerning white people on projection to lose all major homelands within mere decades.
Homelands? Remind me, if you want to talk of race, who is the intruder in North America? Were you in favour of white people wiping out Native Americans, enslaving black Africans and then segregating and disenfranchising black people after being forced to free them? Yet all you have to face is being outvoted, if people do actually vote en bloc by ethnicity in favour of something which you don't also favour.
This is what happens when you forget that people are people. This is what happens when you are taught to hate: you teach yourself to live in fear.
"Homelands? Remind me, if you want to talk of race, who is the intruder in North America? Were you in favour of white people wiping out Native Americans, enslaving black Africans and then segregating and disenfranchising black people after being forced to free them?"
So, no homeland for the Jews then? As for intruders, shall we insist on rolling back the expansion of the Zulus, the Han Chinese, Islam? Shall we all go back to Homo Sapiens' origin point in Africa and leave the rest of the planet vacant? Oh, and the people who 'forced' the freedom of black people in the US, they were white people. "This is what happens when you forget that people are people. This is what happens when you are taught to hate: you teach yourself to live in fear."
And there you have it - are you worried about "white people", or are you worried about "people"? As far as I can see "white people" are still running the show, still have most of the wealth, and in the case of the USA, are still far less likely to get shot by a policeman.
The way to deal with these people is to show them up for the odious losers they are, not resort to the kind of authoritarian repression they would argue for - and in the process turn them into some kind of glamourous oppressed resistance.
Why give freedom of speech to someone who wouldn't give it to you?
I believe the counter demonstration was to show them up for the odious losers they were, and one of the demonstrators got killed for her trouble.
Do we really need to allow a constant deluge of alt-right hatred being vomited out of monitors and into people's heads to show how kind and generous and noble we are, when all it does is help bring about a change in society that would put an end to everybody's freedom of speech? There's no facts, there's no to-and-fro of debate, all there is is just the kind of crap is just one step before ISIS beheading videos on YouTube and nobody has any problem with pulling the plug on those.
Once you start to remove the voice of someone whose message you find distasteful, you are no longer living in a democracy. If this were Trump trying to remove the web-sites of his opponents, there'd be an outcry (and quite rightly). It cannot be one rule for one and another for those you dislike.
I find child porn distasteful (to use your word) and think it should be taken down. Does that make the country any less democratic?
Nobody is obliged to give them a platform. Why they hell should Google, GoDaddy, or anyone else host a website which supports someone running over a group of anti-fascist demonstrators a platform? Other people have got run over by vehicles acting in the name of ISIS, should Google be obliged to give them a platform as well? Both preach hatred. Both are OK with murder. What's the difference?
As for the post above, if we're going full Godwin... if nobody published Mein Kampf then old Adolf would have had a harder time.
'Why give freedom of speech to someone who wouldn't give it to you?'
I believe it's to demonstrate your principles are better than theirs?
Glib quote “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”
For those comparing it to child porn, child porn is illegal, ditto beheading someone. If the Daily Stormer is doing anything like that then sure, close it down and prosecute those responsible. If you want it shut down because you just don't like it, then you're no better than they are.
I agree this site should just remain up. Banning any kind of speech is a really bad idea. YES, even when it is hateful vile bovine excrement spewing forth from unsavory people with objectionable ideas (to say the least). They and their speech should be in the open for people to point at and laugh at.
All this bullshit about "but some guy in the 1930s got to power that way and did horrible things, and he said all this same stuff" ignores the whole gamut of other (horrible) people who got to power saying different things. Like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or Castro (or any other of the left and rightwing dictators we have seen in the world). Or in a lesser league the likes of Bush, Obama, Trump, Merkel, Erdogan, Wilders, etc. The one thing all these people generally have in common is that what they started out doing was controlling the public opinion, by controlling what people could say and what they heard in the media. Hosting providers blocking a site for political reasons is a dangerous precedent. One that can easily be exploited later by those with less obvious motives.
Just allowing someone to talk, even if it is vile isn't a danger. Let them stay out in the open where they can be seen and ridiculed instead of pressing them underground where it becomes hard to follow who agrees with their ideas. If they actually ACT on their stupidity in a way that is a against the law then bring the hammer down hard.
@imanidiot
Banning any kind of speech is a really bad idea.
Hmmm...not ANY kind of speech. We have laws (in the UK at least) about incitement. You can't post on FB saying "Go out and slaughter all the sub-human <insert-name-of-minority-here>" and then expect to be able to get away with saying "Oh, I didn't think anyone would take me seriously" as you're surrounded by a pile of bodies and a mob with bloody pitchforks, or even when a paediatrician gets their front-door daubed with threats. (The UK has a wonderful education system)
But - 'banning'? I'm not aware that anyone has 'banned' this odious bunch of moronic, hate-filled scum. Various private companies have decided they don't want anything to do with them, that is not the same as a 'ban'. More of a boycott, which seems perfectly reasonable.
P.S. Never mind "As much as I hate nazis, but..." I hate Nazis. Period (as the USians say) I learned to hate them. I will not learn to love them. Ever. They must never be allowed to triumph again.
I am struggling to discern whether your remarks are aimed at the Left orthe Right. It seems actually that they apply more to the Left.
Well, bigotry rules, OK?
is there a difference between the fascist and the anti-fascist, other than the anti-fascist's greater indulgence in hypocrisy?
In the end, both, like you, have been led by the nose as 'useful idiots' enslaved by propaganda, and both denying that they alone have not...
is there a difference between the fascist and the anti-fascist, other than the anti-fascist's greater indulgence in hypocrisy?
You appear to have forgotten what fascists actually stand for. I suggest you take a history lesson to refresh your memory (and not one of those mangled lessons where the Holocaust was airbrushed out of documented history).
> Remember that Americans have already been illogical in voting for Trump; imagine if someone beguiling from a group such as this starts appearing on the campaign trail, starts turning on the charisma, etc.
Yes, just imagine what democracy would be like if people could vote for whomever they wanted. Thank goodness for the elite who can block candidates they deem inappropriate for mere plebs to choose.
@another-AC
Yes, just imagine what democracy would be like if people could vote for whomever they wanted.
Democracy is a great principle. I like it. <obligatory Churchill quote about democracy>
But...there are times and places where the basic ideals are being stretched to breaking point. Go back to the original attempts - Athens in BC whatever. All citizens get together, debate an issue and vote. (Of course, women and slaves weren't citizens, but they don't count anyway)
Later we introduced representative democracy. Britain led the world. The local rich bastards get together and vote for one of their mates to represent them in Parliament. (Obviously poor people, women etc don't count)
Later we gave more people the chance to vote for some crook to go to Parliament on their behalf. Elections used to be important occasions. People actually got involved and debated the issues - at the pub, at work, at home - they went to packed meetings with the candidates. The newspapers debated the arguments. Voters had a fair understanding of what they were voting for (or against).
Now? I'm not so sure. People complain they can't vote online - it's too much hassle to walk to the polling station. In many cases votes are cast on the basis of prejudice and ignorance, without any attempt to understand the issues. Remember, in Athens, ALL the voters debated the issue in public before voting.
I'm not sure how to fix the system, while retaining the basic principles, but it badly needs fixing. At the rate we're going we'll have the "Pi should be 3" Party winning a referendum on the basis of emotive FB posts and blatantly lying headlines in the Mail and Express. Even more worrying, the Tories and Corbyn will attempt to make it law as "It's the will of the people".
If it's not broken, don't fix it. But if it IS broken...
Yes, just imagine what democracy would be like if people could vote for whomever they wanted. Thank goodness for the elite who can block candidates they deem inappropriate for mere plebs to choose.
You mean like the DNC promoting a criminal in waiting (Clinton) over what was supposed to be a cream puff in Bernie Sanders?
Naw, that couldn't be it. Us Amerikans are too stupid to see that she and her crew were gaming the system. One could even argue that Trump got a lot of free political air time because the MSM thought Clinton could beat him. (Heck even the Russians and most of the world thought that.)
Free clue. What happened to Bernie was wrong. While I don't agree with his politics, I believe he's sincere in his beliefs and is basically honest for a politician. This is just one example as to why we need to drain the swamp.
If you think that this is anything to do with politics, then there is no hope. This is rather more serious than politics,
What do you think politics is?
it's more a measure of how the patience and tolerance of a normal civilised society is limited and whether it refuses to be exploited by people who have (in most peoples' opinion) foresaken any rights to express themselves, stand for election, etc.
So you're saying people with views you disagree with shouldn't be allowed to express those views??
The great fear, and severe danger, is that these people will be able to use the US legal system to overcome any attempt to disbar them from politics. That would be supremely dangerous.
[...]
What America needs right now is a united political leadership that comes out and nips this in the bud.
So you're saying this group of people you disagree with should be silenced and stopped??!
Sounds a bit fascist to me.
(Difficult this 'freedom' stuff isn't it. ;) )
Seriously though, be careful when condemning a group of bigots that you don't unintentionally use their techniques; "lets stop and silence all the people we don't agree with" generally leads to the thing it's trying to prevent.
If you don't think this is as much to do with politics, then I suggest they you actually go back to school and learn something...
Case in point. BLM have been well documented for calling for violence against the Police. Multiple occasions in multiple marches.
In Dallas there was a shooting of 5 officers assigned to protect the marchers. (Irony?)
There have been other attacks on police in NY, LA, and other states that could be attributed to the BLM.
DO YOU SEE ANYONE CALLING FOR THEIR SITE TO BE TAKEN DOWN?
And that, sir is the point.
You blame Trump. Seems that you're drinking the MSM kool-aid. (That's a Jim Jones reference)
Trump has nothing to do with this and he was correct in condemning both sides for the violence.
Free clue. Member of the anti-fascists came to protest the rally and they came armed with weapons and shields. That means that they were prepared for violence and it shows premeditation. (Intent and Mens Rea.)
Clearly you don't understand why many voted for Trump. I doubt if I told you, you would understand.
(I guess I could ask you why people voted for Brexit, but again, you wouldn't understand.)
So please get a clue. It would help when discussing a topic.
This post has been deleted by its author
I'm going to agree with you but I see the knee jerk reactions are already out in force.
If it was a paper publication would you support the printers removing it from print?
No, you just wouldn't buy it the same as you wouldn't visit the website. The same as I'll never visit the website.
What does banning/stopping it achieve? Do you get a warm fuzzy feeling that something nice has been done? Do you think the alt right nut jobs are going to be sat there going "Right lads, they've banned one website, time to pack up and go home"? What message do you think they will take from this? More likely it's going to enamel them to their cause, "Look, they want to censor and suppress us" is more likely.
Leave them out in the open and ignore them until they break the law then throw the book at them. If you have a problem with what they say then pass laws to make it illegal. Justice needs to come from the courts not the corporations.
@one-of-many-ACs
If it was a paper publication would you support the printers removing it from print?
Yes. In the same way that if they came to me to build them a website promoting their poisonous ideas I would flatly refuse. Why shouldn't a printer have the same right to decide who they work for? Let them find a fascist printer, or set up their own print shop. It's not difficult (although hopefully no-one would sell them the equipment).
If it's okay to have trade embargoes against Russia and the Norks, why not against nazis?
"This is a bad thing, regardless of your political alignment."
Have to disagree with that, there are limits to tolerance and rightfully so. In my opinion there's a huge difference between outing political statements or plain out slandering a deceased woman. And the last is what got these people kicked from GoDaddy in the first place, not their political ideas.
I definitely don't approve with Google's firing of an employee who merely stated how men and women are different, something which nature itself already shows us. That was definitely a weird and in my opinion very bad thing.
But this... This has nothing to do with political correctness, more so with upholding certain standards and protecting the general audience from hate slurs and speeches.
This post has been deleted by its author
Look,
I agree that GoDaddy could claim that the group violated their ToS for material on the site.
Yet Google refused to host the site prior to any violation of their ToS.
So yes, it does have to deal with political correctness.
Google should have had the balls to host the site and to provide them with a warning that any violations or perceived violations would be grounds for immediate termination of their hosting agreement. That would have shown character and the true American Way.
I don't condone the group or their beliefs. Yet I am an American and I believe in the First Amendment. Note that unlike Germany which has laws against Nazis and Hitler, the US doesn't. So until we do, if these losers want to run around in funny brown uniforms and pretend that they are better than everyone else, there's nothing we can do, but point at them and laugh at them for being silly gits.
You claim that they are 'upholding certain standards'. Yet their actions or in some cases inaction seem to counter that belief.
I agree that GoDaddy could claim that the group violated their ToS for material on the site.
Yet Google refused to host the site prior to any violation of their ToS.
Google just needed to look at their cache to see what kind of customer they were dealing with and what kind of content would be there on the first day.
Unless you maintain there was a chance they were going to redo their site and turn it into a My Little Pony fansite in 24 hours.
Heather Heyer was politicked to death then?
This isn't about politics. It's about a bunch of Nazis glorifying the murder of a woman.
Free speech has limits, you are naive if you don't recognise that. Also, nobody is obliged to provide a platform for your free speech, you can stand on a corner and screech if you like, but nobody has to hand you a megaphone.
"nobody is obliged to provide a platform for your free speech, you can stand on a corner and screech if you like, but nobody has to hand you a megaphone."
This isn't about hosting the objectionable material, it's about their domain name registration. So this is more analogous to being denied a corner to screech from, because you don't have the documentation that will allow you out on the street.
Who is providing the street and documentation? If the government, that could be a problem. If (as in this case) it's a private property owner, they have as much a right to tell you to stay the hell off their property as you do to say anything on it. More, in fact.
This isn't about hosting the objectionable material, it's about their domain name registration. So this is more analogous to being denied a corner to screech from, because you don't have the documentation that will allow you out on the street.
No it's not. They could still stand on that corner - after all you can host a site and have it accessible without DNS at all.
If you want to analogise it to standing on a street corner, not being able to get a Domain Name registration is more like someone refusing to list you in their directory of who's speaking where so that people can come and find you. Instead you have to rely on word of mouth.
"This isn't about hosting the objectionable material, it's about their domain name registration. So this is more analogous to being denied a corner to screech from, because you don't have the documentation that will allow you out on the street."
Not sure I agree with that, though I definitely see your point.
Thing is: they only got booted once they started disrespecting a deceased woman. Always easy to talk about someone who can no longer talk back, and in my opinion it's not only disrespectful, it's disgraceful too. Freedom of speech, sure, but that has its limitations and in my opinion rightfully so. It's a thin line, but still there...
<small side step>
I dislike systemd (that's putting it mildly) and I also have no love lost for Poettinger who made this all happen and who appears to be extremely arrogant. If I can I will definitely raise my voice about how stupid and plain out arrogant Poettinger is in my opinion and how we're all better off without his services. But I don't wish him dead. I don't start making it personal, I don't shout crap such as "I hope someone would kill him" because that's taking things waaaaay too far. And if he somehow would get into an accident of some sort then you won't see me celebrating. In such a situation I might share that I'm glad for the whole project to be over, but I'd also immediately mention that I don't like the way it happened one single bit. There's a huge difference between disliking a person, and disrespecting him or worse.
</shell rant>
So to use your analogy...
In my opinion they weren't denied to stand on the street corner because of what they had to say. They were denied because they themselves had already demonstrated not to respect the rules which were in effect when standing on that corner.
By your logic of an amoral ISP hosts would support child pornography websites being hosted, or worse.
Nowt to do with politics. This (Godwin law now permitting) Neo nazi racism is not politics, not when they declare in various ways their hatred of black people..
"I am uncomfortable with domain registars pulling sites for political reasons. Unless I haven't paid my bills, or your have a court document... you shouldn't be pulling my domain for ANY reason".
...but what happens when those sites, for example, openly start advocating violence or murder?
The US Constitution and courts do not allow for government restriction of speech except under very limited circumstances. Private entities have far more leeway to determine what they will or will not tolerate. A question that may have to decided in court is whether companies acting as domain registrars are some sort of public "utility"; a phone company would be unable to deny these assholes a phone line. If they cross the line of what the courts have deemed to protected speech then they can and should be blocked\stopped\banned, whatever you want to call it.
What is needed until they cross that line is for our "Leaders" to take the moral high ground and come out strongly against these thugs and their vile, sick ideology. The rest of us cannot stand by and let them spew their hatred and lies without countering them. Law enforcement at every level needs to come down on them the minute they cross the line from stupid ideas to illegal acts. Letting that bunch of morons stage their demonstration heavily armed was the first mistake. Not breaking it up more forcibly was the second. It should never have gotten to the point where some imbecile can kill anyone.
Tens of thousands of Americans and millions of Europeans died fighting this type of scum not that long ago. And, not that long ago they stayed under their rocks because they knew people and officials would not tolerate them. For some odd reason (sarcasm) they now feel bold enough to come out into the light.
This post has been deleted by its author
Talk about an overreaction!
They'll find some small provider willing to host them, which will become a haven nazis, white supremacists and others of their ilk. Your worries will only come to fruition if large ISPs refuse to route their IP blocks, but considering the rest of the world doesn't even cut off North Korea I don't think that's too likely.
> What are Nazis going to do, boycott Google Search and Android phones?
Unfortunately they are not adverse to murdering people who hold different views to their own.
If this were just about "speech" and posturing it would be one thing but these people are happy to have those who disagree with them eradicated.
These far right fascists are no better than Islamist fascists in wanting to impose their ideologies on everyone else, willing to kill and subjugate those who oppose them.
Actually were Google to host the site, as long as it doesn't violate their ToS would be a win for Google.
You have to understand that the importance of protecting the First Amendment Rights aka 'Free Speech' is an important American principle. You don't just protect the speech that you approve of, but all speech so that you can have an open society.
While the First Amendment actually calls for the government to limit their censorship and to allow public speaking of ideals which it may find distasteful, by extension corporate enterprises, especially monopolies like Google and even FB also have that responsibility.
Google could have had a massive PR gain had they actually done the right thing.
I don't agree with any of these radical groups to either side of the spectrum, but I do defend their rights to free speech as long as it doesn't call for violence.
Google dumping them doesn't infringe on their right to free speech in any way whatsoever. They are still free to say what they want, they'll just have to get some other company's help to get their hateful message to their followers.
If you owned a bakery, and someone came in wanting one of those fancy cakes made that has a picture 'printed' on it, with a swastika and a picture of a lynched black man, would you consider a "massive PR gain" for your shop that you "did the right thing" and made them the cake? Or would you say "the first amendment supports your right to have such a cake made, but doesn't require me to be the one to make it for you" and tell them to find another bakery?
Bit of a rumination here.but it might have played out like this
These misunderstood Nazis look for a new domain register
Aware that there is some social opinion against them, and concerns against dosing and all manner of Anonymous-like activity that might be directed against them, the registration details they give are economical with the truth.
Google, wary of criticism they have been under, have a watchlist of domain names they would want to be aware of being associated with.
Hence, the registration is not let through solely on the usual algorithmic checks but flagged for human review.
Upon checking the registration details, the misdirection is unconverted which gives Google sufficient leeway to invoke terms and conditions and drop this hot potato.
I'm sorry.. Paedophilia is banned from every known area of the open internet. If it is found, then it is immediately removed, people prosecuted and while it is true they will inevitably find another haven, it means they're still inconvenienced.
I fail to see how Nazi'ism cannot be treated in the same way. I think the world has already seen how it is not a very helpful political system. And I'm using that term simply for sake of clarity.
Censorship is only wrong when the thing being censored isn't virtually universally condemned.
Unfortunately, paedophilia is a sexual issue, while Naziism is a political one.
As disgusting as it may be, Naziism is actually protected under Free Speech. So, while it is definitely not a good political system, one cannot prevent people from entertaining the idea openly.
One can, however, identify the individuals, never speak with them again and warn all of one's friends and relations.
"I fail to see how Nazi'ism cannot be treated in the same way."
Because one thing is about what people do and one about what they think. Communism has arguably done far worse for society and Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler. Are we going to remove that too? These things are about thoughts and we should all be free to express thoughts and ideas freely.
If our thoughts then carry on into illegal acts then the law should act. Until then. No. If I say things that sound bad to you fine I'm allowed to. If my speech goes on into acts that break the law - no - punish me. At least we have a voice an a way in democratic countries to influence the law (supposedly - sometimes I struggle to see democracy working).
@Timmy B
Communism has arguably done far worse for society and Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler. Are we going to remove that too? These things are about thoughts and we should all be free to express thoughts and ideas freely.
No, people attempting to implement what they called 'communism' have done far worse for society, in some cases deliberately, as they didn't give a toss for the ideals of communism, merely personal power. Think ISIS and their corrupt ideas of Islam.
Stalin? Not a good example. The millions he killed didn't die because of something he thought. Thoughts have a nasty habit of being turned into actions, good and bad. Anyone advocating setting up a Stalinist state should be suppressed in just the same way as nazis or other violent, intolerant extremists.
"Paedophilia is banned from every known area of the open internet."
Specified illegal material content is banned - albeit depending on the laws of the country of hosting or viewing. People probably express their opinions on the subject on web sites.
Extracts from Nabokov's novel "Lolita" would not be illegal in most countries except possibly for copyright reasons. Many Greek myths involving minors*** are definitely on the web - as are academic papers on the practices of Ancient Greece or the Ottoman Empire.
*** the defined age qualifying as a "minor" is dependent on the relevant jurisdiction.
I take issue with '...albeit against opponents whose position on diversity is to insist there be none'
Nazis love diversity.
There's the Nazis (they call themselves us)
and then there's:
There's everybody who is black
There's everybody who is Jewish
There's the Communists
There's everybody who is Gay
There's the gypsies
There's the Catholics
There's the Freemasons
There's everybody who disagrees with them
There's everybody who isn't white
Nationalism with strong borders actually maintains global diversity. Destroying borders and flooding white countries with the rest of the world only removes white people from the gene pool (along with all the huge diversity already expressed within white phenotypes). A white minority is already projected in every major country across the West within mere decades - so may of you need to WAKE UP and realise that what you see as a moral crusade is nothing if the sort.
A white minority is already projected in every major country across the West within mere decades - so may of you need to WAKE UP and realise that what you see as a moral crusade is nothing if the sort.
Now this is just rubbish - the current population of the UK is 92% white - that's about 54million white people.
It would take nearly the entire 'global displaced population' to move to the UK to take the country below 50% caucasian - (granted, the countries population would then be around 127million)
If we dropped the 65million globally displaced individuals into Germany, it would still have the majority of people be of European descent.
If the entire population of the middle east (around 411million) moved to Europe, it would still not be a majority (current population of Europe: 739million)
So please. stop spouting rubbish
@Papa D
A very well argued refutation of a stupid and ignorant belief. But you cheated - you quoted facts
Unfortunately bigots aren't influenced by reality. You'll find people living in a village in Yorkshire without a non-white face for miles, complaining about 'the flood of immigrants destroying our communities', despite the evidence of their own eyes.
"removes white people from the gene pool (along with all the huge diversity already expressed within white phenotypes). A white minority is already projected in every major country across the West within mere decades "
Even if this were likely, populations evolve. Why is this a problem? Do you think white people have a natural right to be in the majority?
This post has been deleted by its author
"if we fight fascism with fascism then we become fascists ourselves."
What if we fight it with lesbians? Or children? Or bears? Oo or all three.. young lesbian bears against fascism.. what do we want? We have no idea, we're an incredibly confused fiction in some comment section. When do we want it? Why are you asking all these questions, we just want to fight fascists.
I have many people that I disagree with politically but they disagree with me too I bet. I want them to be able to say what they want and for me to be able to say what I want. Unless one of us breaks the law. That should be the governing thing - the law. If I break the law then punish me according to the law. If I dont - leave me the hell alone, and anyone else. I don't care if I hurt someones feels. I don't care one bit. One day all we'll be left with is a facebook full of pictures of meals and youtube full of kittens. I find that more disagreeable than anything.
Where do you stop? I have no idea because I either don't have enough information or don't have the clarity of thought to make an informed decision.
Banning far right (or far left for that matter) extremist groups on the face of it is justified because they are a loathsome group who shouldn't be given the time of day. However, if you remove these groups completely then the next group towards the centre become the extremists, and so on. Who will decide when you have come far enough away from the existing extremists for it to be allowed?
By removing these groups you drive them underground much like, as has been mentioned earlier, with pedophilia. It doesn't stop them but makes it harder to monitor them. The aim should be to stop this level of thought and moderate peoples views to improve interpersonal / group relations.
Finally, free speech should be about being able to express your views 'freely' without fear or favour so long as they don't hit certain criteria such as incite violence. There are already laws in place to deal with such issues so use them. If people aren't able to air their views freely, you can't state a case against those views to hopefully persuade the people with them to change.
I think these days of global instantaneous vitriol, trolling and general attacks against people, no matter how justified you may feel, or how many people agree with you just adds to the problem as it causes greater polarisation between groups. People are scared to make a comment in the public domain because instead of a reasoned debate* they are attacked and threatened.
*I realise that trying to have a reasoned debate with some of these right wing groups is a contradiction in terms.
"I realise that trying to have a reasoned debate with some of these right wing groups is a contradiction in terms."
Anyone who has their identity heavily invested in a particular group's shibboleths will not engage in truly rational debate. They may take a reasoned approach - but their arguments are usually anchored in those shibboleths which themselves may be apparently unreasonable. Religious schisms are a good example.
Those who feel the foundation of their identity is threatened by opposing arguments often resort to vitriol and abuse.
it's intolerance.
But we need to learn from history. Nazis are not nice people. They are not nice fluffy liberals with a few slightly wacky ideas. They are willing to use the beliefs and principles of free speech as tools to destroy their opponents. They will lie and misrepresent the truth to gain power. They will use threats and actual violence. And when they are in power we can say good-bye to those basic freedoms that most of us believe in.
They distort the truth to make simple-minded folk believe in what they say. They appeal to the lowest emotions that many people usually try and hide, because they know, deep down, that they're wrong. It's a more extreme version of why many people won't admit to voting Tory.
Usually invoking the spirit of Herr Hilter in a thread means that all reasoned debate has ended, but in a thread on the danger to us all of modern nazism it is relevant. Look at what he did, and how he did it - how many elections did he hold after he got into power? What lies did he tell?
Nazism must be stopped in its tracks. It does not deserve to benefit from the freedoms it refuses to grant to others.
@Pen-y-gors
The issue is that you could replace Nazis with Communists in your post and it would be just as true. You could also put in a whole load of extreme beliefs. Put in Animal Rights Extremists and it works too. Put in extreme Christianity (westboro baptists) - works too. Any viewpoint that has an extremist ideology will work. We all have a right to say these things and to gather with likeminded loonies and share our thoughts. Until and only until we break the law. Trying to change it any other way is going to end up with thoughtcrime and the thought police.
This post has been deleted by its author
An awful lot of the comments in here, and in the wider media are about Google "banning" this website, and why them doing so is bad.
Horseshit.
Google haven't "banned" this site, they've declined to do business with the company. There's nothing in the world that states "I have my point of view and you must be the vehicle by which I carry that to the world".
The T&C say that they won't carry any content that's "Objectionable". This is a suitably ambiguous term that allows them to make their own decision as to what's objectionable, and to simply decline to do business with any company or individual who doesn't align with their own view.
At the moment Google is basically holding the domain hostage, so yes, they are effectively banning it. There seems to be very little in either Google's ToS or the ICANN rules that would allow them to act in this manner.
And at no point has Google (or GoDaddy for that matter) been the 'host' of the domain. This is only about the domain registration.
To take it in offline terms, imagine this being about a phone book listing. Google has first accepted submitting them to get listed in the phone book. Then they turned around and changed their listing to a non-working number and so far they aren't letting anyone else change it back.
Does a right to free speech imply any obligation on others to facilitate it?
I wonder how many of those suggesting that Google (or Go Daddy, or whoever) are under some kind of obligation to do business with people they'd prefer not to also feel that (for instance) a bakery operated by fundamentalist christians should be legally obliged to make and decorate cakes for same-sex marriage celebrations?
No it doesn't imply an obligation to facilitate it.
The right to free speech is a bit misunderstood - it's the right to make free speech without governmental interference. If companies such as Google, Facebook, etc. decide not to publish or facilitate the publishing of your free speech on their infrastructure, then your right to free speech has not been infringed.
The right to free speech is incumbent upon the US Government. The Constitution requires that the Government allow (indeed, support) free speech. Private citizens are not required to do so. Of course, a citizen who values free speech as a good that all should promote would want to support free speech, but it is their choice. I, for one, would not support a lot of speech if I had a website that too, say, comments or guest blogs.
If that site was just about nazis idea I might be uncomfortable with pulling the plug about political speech. But it's more than just that they incite violence. Tell people who to target. I can say I hate white people all day long. Once I start saying we should kill white people and organize ralleys about hurting white people that's a step to far and yes I should be shut down.
Have you visited the site in question? Where's the incitement to violence, and if it was there, why hasn't anyone been prosecuted for it during the many years it has been online?
You also happened to miss the big text to the right clearly stating they are opposed to violence and that anyone calling for it will be banned?
The thing many here advocating for the Nazi free speech are missing is that while it is easy to laugh them off when the sun is shining and times are good...
It becomes somewhat less easy to dismiss them when the sun isn't shining, times are hard, and people are angry, hurting, and looking for somebody to blame. This is what the elites on both the left and the right have been encouraging and exploiting for decades (its good for business you know), and Trump took advantage of in order to get elected.
Now what do you think is going to happen next, when the political elites are either unable or unwilling to address the present problems of society? People cannot just be placed on a shelf and told to wait for things to become better "tomorrow". Especially when some of them have been hearing that same crap line from both sides of the aisle for 10 years or more and catchphrases like "lost generation" are being flung around.
Don't be like the Hungarian professor in "Don't be a Sucker". These Nazis are a bigger threat than you think (even more so in today's world, due to political leaders looking for any handle they can get their hands on, without regard for their lack of ability to control the forces they unleash), and dismissing them as "Crazy People, Stupid Fanatics" is like sleepwalking into a future NO ONE wants, but sadly society may need / deserve if it doesn't wake the hell up and actually earnestly deal with the present and very immediate problems.
You can also expect to see more groups like them (and some perhaps even less savory) to emerge in the immediate future, unless things change for the better. You can also expect the elites to crack down more on speech, as things become more dangerous, less civil and it becomes more evident that the elites are unable or unwilling to remedy societal and economic ills.
Anonymous, because I've lost all faith in Democracy in light of the unsightly display of selfish, greedy, self-interest and untempered lust for power on display in present humanity... So, why did I bother posting? Well, maybe because Nazi Germany happened because people like me decided to just shut up and keep my head down and rationalized doing so because "it wasn't my problem". At least I can say I tried to fight it in a small and half-arsed sort of way...
Contrary to the Declaration of Independence, not all men are created equal (otherwise, explain Down Syndrome). There are people who instinctively idolize things like this and will never be swayed away (just as you have sociopaths who are impossible to change--part of the definition).
Do ya think cancelling the daily stormper contract will cut into Bob's love of shooting elephants and big boob websites promoting them 427" American macho circular car racing?
Gee.. probably not.
Well.. even if so, fellow billionaire Robert Mugabe will pick up the slack. Hey- what's another $45 / year?
Public service announcement:
This is not about whether Google should have the absolute right to refuse to do business with someone.
This is about whether Google should have the right to arbitrarily steal customers' domains because they don't like the contents.
Google has put dailystormer.com in "client hold" status. Which means that it's not in DNS and can't be moved away from Google to another registrar.
And it's still, almost a month later, in that status.
This is clearly not OK or acceptable business practices in any way regardless of someone's personal opinion about the (fully legal, by the way) contents of Daily Stormer.
In other words, they are not only refusing to do business with Daily Stormer, but also actively preventing them from doing business with anyone else. They have absolutely no right, under law or any of the relevant agreements including their own ToS, to do this.
The only reason Google can do this is becaues they are big and well-financed enough that they don't have to give a flying f*ck about any legal consequences. Sounds perfectly reasonable to you...?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
