SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
We've had multiple submissions on the confrontation in Charlottesville, Virginia between white supremacists and counter-protesters. We lead off with a submission about the altercation which culminated with a car driven into a crowd which left 1 person dead and 19 injured. Then we continue with GoDaddy informing dailystormer.com — a white supremacist web site which called for the rally — that they had 24 hours to find another registrar for their site. They signed up with Google's domain registration service. Now there are reports that Google, too, has dropped the registration.
This story could very well cause a lot of heat, but it is my hope we can look beyond the details of this particular situation and focus discussion on the overriding questions of freedom of speech/publication raised by one of the submitters and the implications it may lead to. This saying comes to mind: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Terrorism in Charlottesville: 1 Dead, 19 Injured
ProPublica reports:
Police Stood By As Mayhem Mounted in Charlottesville, Virginia
At about 10 a.m. [August 12], at one of countless such confrontations, an angry mob of white supremacists formed a battle line across from a group of counter-protesters, many of them older and gray-haired, who had gathered near a church parking lot. On command from their leader, the young men charged and pummeled their ideological foes with abandon. One woman was hurled to the pavement, and the blood from her bruised head was instantly visible.
Standing nearby, an assortment of Virginia State Police troopers and Charlottesville police wearing protective gear watched silently from behind an array of metal barricades--and did nothing.
[...] the white supremacists who flooded into the city's Emancipation Park--a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee sits in the center of the park--had spent months openly planning for war. The Daily Stormer, a popular neo-Nazi website, encouraged rally attendees to bring shields, pepper spray, and fascist flags and flagpoles. A prominent racist podcast told its listeners to come carrying guns.
[...] the white supremacists who showed up in Charlottesville did indeed come prepared for violence. Many wore helmets and carried clubs, medieval-looking round wooden shields, and rectangular plexiglass shields, similar to those used by riot police.
[...] The police did little to stop the bloodshed. Several times, a group of assault-rifle-toting militia members from New York State, wearing body armor and desert camo, played a more active role in breaking up fights.
[...] The skirmishes culminated in what appears to have been an act of domestic terrorism, with a driver ramming his car into a crowd of anti-racist activists on a busy downtown street, killing one and injuring 19 according to the latest information from city officials. Charlottesville authorities tonight reported that a 20-year-old Ohio man had been arrested and had been charged with murder.
[...] A good strategy, [said Miriam Krinsky, a former federal prosecutor who has worked on police reform efforts in Los Angeles], is to make clashes less likely by separating the two sides physically, with officers forming a barrier between them. "Create a human barrier so the flash points are reduced as quickly as possible."
GoDaddy Stomps 'Daily Stormer' -- Site Moves to Google
The Washington Post reports GoDaddy bans neo-Nazi site Daily Stormer for disparaging woman killed at Charlottesville rally:
After months of criticism that GoDaddy was providing a platform for hate speech, the Web hosting company announced late Sunday that it will no longer house the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website that promotes white supremacist and white nationalist ideas.
[...] We informed The Daily Stormer that they have 24 hours to move the domain to another provider, as they have violated our terms of service.
— GoDaddy (@GoDaddy) August 14, 2017
[...] In the Daily Stormer post[1], [Andrew] Angelin characterized [victim Heather] Heyer as dying in a "road rage incident." He said she was a "drain on society" and disparaged her appearance. "Most people are glad she is dead," he wrote.
"@GoDaddy you host The Daily Stormer — they posted this on their site," Twitter user Amy Siskind said in an appeal to the Web hosting company. "Please retweet if you think this hate should be taken down & banned."
[...] GoDaddy has previously said that the content, however "tasteless" and "ignorant," is protected by the First Amendment. The company told the Daily Beast in July that a Daily Stormer article threatening to "track down" the family members of CNN staffers did not violate Domains by Proxy's terms of service.
After the incidents in Charlottesville it seems GoDaddy have decided, one can gather from and after a massive amount of pressure, to no longer provide Domain name access to the Daily Stormer. While a private company is free to do whatever they like, I wonder if there will or might be further implications. I think the interesting question here isn't what happened in Charlottesville or what kind of stories they provide over at the Daily Stormer -- they might be or are a complete shitfest filled with neo-nazi-news for all I know. The interesting aspect is if companies should now monitor their customers, which it seems the Daily Stormer has been one for years, and ban or block customers that no longer align with company beliefs or that other customers find offensive. It seems the Daily Stormer has previously posted "tasteless" and "ignorant" stories that one can only assume have not aligned with GoDaddy policy or Terms of Service, but this one was somehow over the line and the straw that broke the camel's back?
I'm fairly sure the Daily Stormer won't be knocked offline or anything, there will always be someone willing to host them somewhere. So today they try to knock a neo-nazi site offline, I doubt many people will lose any sleep over that, but who is going to be next? Is this part of the ramping up of the current online-twitter-socialweb-culture? Is there a slippery slope here?
Google Domains, GoDaddy blacklist white supremacist site Daily Stormer
Ars Technica is reporting that Google Domains and GoDaddy have blacklisted white supremacist site Daily Stormer:
The article prompted a response from the site's domain registrar, GoDaddy. "We informed The Daily Stormer that they have 24 hours to move the domain to another provider, as they have violated our terms of service," GoDaddy wrote in a tweet late Sunday night.
On Monday, the Daily Stormer switched its registration to Google's domain service. Within hours, Google announced a cancellation of its own. "We are cancelling Daily Stormer's registration with Google Domains for violating our terms of service," the company wrote in an statement emailed to Ars.
[...] A lot of outlets covering this controversy described GoDaddy, somewhat misleadingly, as the Daily Stormer's hosting provider. But GoDaddy wasn't storing or distributing the content on the Daily Stormer website. It was the Daily Stormer's registrar, which is the company that handles registration of "dailystormer.com" in the domain name system, the global database that connects domain names like "arstechnica.com" to numeric IP addresses.
GoDaddy has faced pressure for months from anti-racist groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League to drop the Daily Stormer as a customer. But until this weekend, GoDaddy resisted that pressure.
"GoDaddy doesn't host The Daily Stormer's content on its servers," the investigative site Reveal reported in May. "Because it provides only the domain name, the company says it has a higher standard for terminating service."
"We need to evaluate what level of effect we can actually have on the abuse that's actually going on," said Ben Butler, director of GoDaddy's digital crimes unit, in a May interview with Reveal. "As a domain name registrar, if we take the domain name down, that domain name stops working. But the content is still out there, live on a server connected to the Internet that can be reached via an IP address or forwarded from another domain name. The actual content is not something we can touch by turning on or off the domain name service."
But GoDaddy abruptly changed its stance on Sunday evening. What changed GoDaddy's mind? In a statement to Techcrunch, GoDaddy said: "given this latest article comes on the immediate heels of a violent act, we believe this type of article could incite additional violence, which violates our terms of service."
Reading GoDaddy's terms of service, this seems to support their stance that they could suspend the domain registration:
9. RESTRICTION OF SERVICES; RIGHT OF REFUSAL
[...] You agree that GoDaddy, in its sole discretion and without liability to you, may refuse to accept the registration of any domain name. GoDaddy also may in its sole discretion and without liability to you delete the registration of any domain name during the first thirty (30) days after registration has taken place. GoDaddy may also cancel the registration of a domain name, after thirty (30) days, if that name is being used, as determined by GoDaddy in its sole discretion, in association with spam or morally objectionable activities. Morally objectionable activities will include, but not be limited to:
- Activities prohibited by the laws of the United States and/or foreign territories in which you conduct business;
- Activities designed to encourage unlawful behavior by others, such as hate crimes, terrorism and child pornography; and
- Activities designed to harm or use unethically minors in any way.
As of the time of this being written, it appears that the Daily Stormer domain (dailystormer.com) is still being hosted by Google:
Domain Name: dailystormer.com
Registry Domain ID: 1787753602_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.google.com
Registrar URL: https://domains.google.com
Updated Date: 2017-08-14T14:51:45Z
Creation Date: 2013-03-20T22:43:18Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2020-03-20T22:43:18Z
Registrar: Google Inc.
Registrar IANA ID: 895
Registrar Abuse Contact Email:
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.8772376466
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://www.icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday August 14 2017, @11:07PM (34 children)
It's no different to a gang of white supremacist dipshits walking into a printer's shop and ordering a bunch of swastika pamphlets. I know I wouldn't complain at the print shop owners for turning them down. Take your filthy ideology and tainted money elsewhere, nazi scum.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Monday August 14 2017, @11:10PM (1 child)
By that analogy they could buy their own printing press and self publish. I don't know their ISP's policies but they could self host their site if they so desire. Domain names might be difficult to self host (I'm pushing the limits of my web hosting knowledge).
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 14 2017, @11:19PM
They're not otherwise we wouldn't be hosting ours. Registering a name is another story entirely but nobody said they had to register with a US registrar.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @11:12PM (12 children)
What about someone turning down baking a cake?
What about someone refusing to serve a cop?
It is ether all acceptable or none of it is.
I swear this past election is making me look like a conspiracy nutter. This feels like gaslighting. I am getting the same icky feeling. Watch the media connect this to Trump. Too late they already did.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @11:21PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:02AM (1 child)
I moderated this away from flamebait because ^this is what the debate is about:
It is ether (sic) all acceptable or none of it is.
What should be silenced and what not? DRAW the line: should a Nazi supporter draw the line? A gay man? A 40 year old woman with the mental capacity of a 12-15 year old?
That's mein Kampf: my struggle. As I said above in comments, this dailystormer site is horrible, but who has the right to shut them down?
If you were to think black people are a drain on society, should you be allowed to say this and shut down people who protest what you say?
If you were to think white people are a drain on society, should you be allowed to say this and shut down people who protest what you say?
Drawing a line is tough when you support freedom.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:45AM
Generally having an opinion is fine, "I wish there were no blacks as they're a drain on society and things would be better if they all dropped dead". Whereas actively inciting violence isn't, "Lets grab our shields and clubs and do something about those blacks who are a drain on society".
Of course somewhere in there, the line gets blurry.
Freedom ca be messy as there are so many freedoms and they often conflict.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:48AM (6 children)
Read up on the right to refuse service.
The right to refuse service allows a business to refuse service with exceptions. You can't discriminate based on religion, race, color, country of origin, and disability. Those are called protected classes. California extends this to include things like sexual orientation, gender identity, unconventional dress, and political affiliation. So it sounds like refusing to print flyers for nazis may or nay not be illegal depending on the jurisdiction.
But you can also refuse service if the business owner feels that the actions taken could harm them or cause trouble. So going back to your example, in california you might get in trouble for not serving a group of PEACEFUL nazi's in a restaurant. But if said nazi's cause any sort of trouble, then there is a reason to refuse service. That can also include paraphernalia that can cause other patrons to become upset or create an atmosphere of discomfort. Meaning, if you walk into a restaurant with a big swastika on your shirt, they can refuse you service.
Most of this is black and white, some of it however, is grey. But what about printing flyers? The same laws applies only this time the business owner can cite the fact that cooperating with nazis is something which would hurt their business image. It could also indirectly harm them by making them a target for threats. And let's be real here, printing hate speech is very different than baking a fucking wedding cake for two people celebrating a happy life event (which is what this all stems from). And anyone refusing service to a cop is also treading in legal water. The cop could sue and the case brought to court.
You sound paranoid. Relax, sit back and do some reading. You'll find most of this is pretty black and white for the most part. Grey in some areas, yes. But that is why we have courts.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by helel on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:16AM (2 children)
That doesn't really sound black and white at all.
If an individual wearing a swastika is behaving peaceably why should they be refused service? How is that any different then an individual with a pro-choice shirt? Both make some subset of the population highly uncomfortable and those so offended would in both cases describe the shirt as promoting violence.
A printer might argue that serving nazi clientele could hurt their business and bring threats but in many parts of the country a bakery could make the same claim if one of their cakes were to be seen at a gay marriage.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:30AM
It isn't. There are enough nutjobs out there that wearing a shirt with an extremist message is equivalent to lighting an open fire on a total fire ban day.
Lost clients is a personal decision about where THEY draw the line. Their reaction to threats depends on how good the police force is. But they're both in the same boat.
The only way of guaranteeing everybody service is to have a government run provider of said service that isn't worried about losing clients, paid for by tax dollars (that IS the government's job).
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday August 15 2017, @11:52AM
If the image is offensive and is upsetting others then that is damaging to business and you can force them to leave. It's no different than my shit stirring friend who wore his "jesus is a cunt" t shirt to McDonalds and was asked to leave by management. People were pissed and the right to refuse service was valid because that did not violate the federal law.
Let's be real here, one is a hate group, the other is a hated group. Which of the two do you see as being more damaging to business?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:15AM (2 children)
LOL, The irony, it burns.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:10PM (1 child)
It's called sarcasm.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @09:17PM
Please review Poe's Law [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:04AM (1 child)
Answer: we have protected classes of people / products, and if the class list needs to be updated then it will. That is actually what society is all about, social contracts.
This is entirely the reason why we have the concept of "law" and a supreme court to rule on matters according to the times. We have decided that your religious beliefs are not a valid reason to discriminate against a gay couple, although I wonder about exceptions for publicly displayed disclaimers like "no shoes, no shirt, no service".
Anyway, the false equivalency that has become so popular has got to go. "It is ether all acceptable or none of it is." Wrong. We already have areas of speech that are specifically excluded. With GoDaddy they are claiming the site violated ToS, so then it becomes a court case for experts to figure out and set new precedent. Should a domain registrar be considered an essential activity that can't exclude customers for political / moral opinions?
As for Trump, the dude has so many shady connections and is an obvious conman who can't help but lie through his teeth. Exposing his prejudiced support base that he refuses to actually condemn until his administration wears him down is the least he deserves for all the shitty stuff he's said and done. He didn't drive the car, but he sure as hell got the nazi segment of society fully energized.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:52AM
So where are these social contracts I've agreed to? I want to re-read the terms and check for my signature.
Contracts of adherence are invalid.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:08AM (18 children)
Oh, but wait - what was your position on the Christian wedding cake people who refused to make a gay wedding cake?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:55AM (17 children)
They weren't being very Christ like?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:20AM (16 children)
Or, maybe they were being very Christ like. There is not one single passage in the Bible that approves of homoseuality. There are many passages that condemn it.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:02AM (12 children)
Divorce too. Depending on which Gospel you read, Jesus is either totally opposed (Mark) or opposed in all cases except cheating (Matthew). But I don't see a helluva lotta Christian bakers telling divorced people "NO CAKE FOR JOO!"
So they're not being Christ-like so much as hypocritical.
As for me and my girlfriend, I can bake juuuust fine, so no skin off my nose if some bigoted baker says lesbians give her the icks.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:38AM (11 children)
"But I don't see a helluva lotta Christian bakers telling divorced people "NO CAKE FOR JOO!""
You aren't very familiar with very many Catholics then. In the wider Christian community, you can find plenty of churches that ostracize divorcees. No cake? How about no wedding. Or, find a more hypocritical minister willing to perform the wedding, or just go with a Justice of the Peace wedding.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:09AM (9 children)
"The wider Christian community," at least in the US, considers Catholics vile heretics who will spend eternity screaming and writhing in Hellfire. Ask me how I know (hint: was raised Catholic). Try again. Or, y'know, don't.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:08AM (8 children)
That explains a lot about Azuma . . .
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:15AM
I was raised Catholic, and twice a day, I pray: "Fuck God!". They tell me I will come back. Not likely. What were we talking about? Oh, right, Runaway's psychological problems. Well, I recommend Water Hemlock [wikipedia.org], with repeated doses if necessary. Cures almost everything. Worked well for a friend of mine [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:28PM (6 children)
What does it explain, precisely? Why I felt the need to spend, as of this writing, almost 12 years studying Church history, Koine Greek, apologetics, counter-apologetics, logic, moral philosophy, and comparative religion?
I'd have made an excellent Jesuit except for the whole no-Y-chromosome thing. That, and thinking for myself.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:19PM (5 children)
Catholics are broken. And, that puts you at a huge disadvantage.
As for a missing chromosome or two, you could try Amazon.
And, thinking for yourself is dangerous in this day and age. Well, actually, any day and age.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 15 2017, @08:55PM (4 children)
If it helps, I'd effectively deconverted before confirmation. I was never an atheist but I discovered Paine in junior high and read voraciously.
How are Catholics, every single one of them, to a man/woman, "broken?" And if your answer is "They're not Protestants (like I am)" I'll spit right in your eye.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @11:04PM (3 children)
Doctrine and dogma. Jesus Christ didn't leave a deputy behind to take his place, did he? Yet, we have this infallibility of the pope and all the rest of that nonsense. The church can do no wrong, blah blah blah, ad nauseum. When you cut to the chase, the Catholic church established that whole "buy your way into heaven" thing. Buy those votive candles, buy absolution from the priest at confession, buy buy buy. The church has taken the place of the money changers, and Jesus would NOT be happy.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 16 2017, @02:11AM
You sound like me in 4th grade CCD, you know that? :) One of the nuns actually spat at me "You....you little *Protestant!*" once after I questioned some aspects of the liturgy that I hadn't found in the Bible. From reading it. Myself. Cover to cover. At age 9.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @09:36AM (1 child)
Ummm, "Peter, you are my rock, and on you I build my church." Jesus
My Gawd, Runaway1956! Are you really this fucking stupid and uneducated? I thought your ignorance of Islam was due to Right wing fear spreading, and general lack of education in American, and even more in Arkansas, but you appear to be equally ignorant of the basis tenets of Christianity! So, tell us, what are the first five, no, just four, amendments to the Constitution of the United States? Who is buried in Grant's tomb? And what is the Hertz frequency of the US electrical grid?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 16 2017, @01:37PM
Peter wasn't nominated and confirmed as The New Jesus. Peter didn't do a lot of miracles, did he? We don't pray to Peter, Paul, or Mary. (Some of us still listen to their music though!) There was no deputy to Jesus, and IF there were, it would probably have been Paul. Uneducated, you say? Look above at Zumi's post. Like myself, she read the book from cover to cover. She may have beaten me by a couple years (age 9 I think she said), but she read it. And, look at her post - as much as we hate to agree with each other - SHE AGREED WITH ME!!
Now go. Read the book. And, troll no more.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:56AM
Church's aren't public facing businesses. Public facing businesses are usually licensed to serve the public with only general exceptions such as dress codes
Here in Canada, when gay weddings were legalized, the law actually specified that ministers etc could refuse to marry gays and that it was a firing offence for a civil servant such as a marriage commissioner to refuse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:09AM (2 children)
Come, now, Runaway! You just need to study your Bible more! For the Clergy, certain perogatives are given. What a pretty mouth you have, young Runaway? Do you parents know where you are? Would you like to be an "altar boy" for the night? Jesus would want you to do it, and if you do, your soul with have a place in the mansions of the Lord. Oh, my Lord! Oh, oH, OH, my LOrrrd!!.
Yes, that is how it goes. You can still file charges, Runaway. Might be good for your own mental state. Free you from Fox News, it can.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:16AM (1 child)
What would it take to free you of your obsession with anal sex? Do you even remember how many men have boned you? Yes, we can begin counting with your daddy, and his four brothers, your preacher, the six cops who arrested you for parading downtown naked. But, please continue - how many other men have there been?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @09:13AM
I love it when ACs start talking dirty to each other, and no one can tell who the Catholic priest is! Oh, we were discussing racism? That's alright, too. All young boys are children of God.
*Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers*