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: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:01AM (26 children)
Socialize all printing presses and all the media that can carry a message. Even if it looks like "socialism", the "free speech socialism" is absolutely acceptable, right?
I reckon this will easily get to the point TMB will gladly allow access to his own personal computers to any stranger that, maybe momentarily, can't post on the Internet.
(will we get to the point of "in dire straight, even S/N may need to lend a hand to a poor national socialist to expose his platform. And, why stop at one"?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:17AM (25 children)
Ah, see there's the difference between you and me. When I say I think something is immoral, that's all it means. When you say it it also means you think it should be illegal. Typical regressive progtard.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:27AM (9 children)
Opps! Look like somebody's got a broken moral compass! If something is immoral, it is wrong. If something is illegal, it should also be wrong. Are you saying that illegal things are right, or that immoral things are not wrong? This kind of confused thinking might lead you into the darkness of the alt-right, Bussbar! Careful. (And what the hell is "regressive protard"? Did you mean repressive progressive? Or right-wing apologist libertariantard?)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:35AM (3 children)
I'm saying, outside the things that everyone pretty much universally agrees upon (like murder, rape, and the like), morality should never be legislated.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:13AM
"things that everyone pretty much universally agrees upon"
Problem right there, see you can't expect every individual to know what they are universally in tune to. Our laws are quite complex and there really is no way around that. Some activities are protected and you can not refuse service, others are not so protected. Registrars are plentiful and the content on that site is probably approaching the legal line quite closely, so I doubt anything will happen there. Just a bunch of angry posting.
Now getting refused service from an ISP would hold more weight in court, fewer options and more of a basic utility.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @02:16AM (1 child)
The American Society of Rapist and Murderers would like to point out that there is no universal agreement that murder and rape are immoral.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:04AM
I'm sure that such a group wouldn't mind being subject to rape and murder to prove their point.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:23AM
Let me help you some. In parts of the world, it's alright to have multiple wives, to beat them, to keep them illiterate, pregnant, and to drape them in rugs when they have to be brought out in public. But, that whole concept of maintaining dominance over women is "immoral". So, decent men don't do that shit. It's still "legal" in those places. So, if you were to move to a place where men DO routinely take child brides, and treat them as described - would it be alright for YOU to do all of that? It's LEGAL, right? But it would still be immoral.
That is - if you have any morals.
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:09AM
I believe it is immoral to willingly desire romantic relations with children, but I do not believe we should jail people purely for the thoughts they have in the sanctity of their mind.
If you believe that immorality and illegality are inseparable, then one of my positions is inevitably wrong. Please explain which one is, and why that is. And just to clarify, when I say "willingly" I mean that the person would pursue such a thing, if not for the threat of reprisal by the rest of society.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:44AM (2 children)
If-then statements do not imply their converse. Just because something is wrong, doesn't mean it is immoral or illegal. This is basic reasoning 101. You need to up your game.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:18AM (1 child)
khallow, we are talking logic, it is outside your area of expertise. We had a pair of conditionals. If you do not understand what is being said, you should shut the fuck up. Moron.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 15 2017, @09:27PM
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:33AM (14 children)
Ok. So no "nationalization of the presses". Let me see how moral you are.
Would you allow a person to use your personal computer to post a "free speech" message on the internet, no matter the circumstances?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:37AM (13 children)
How much would they be paying me? I mean if it's got enough zeroes I'm perfectly willing to turn this thing into a public speech conduit. Right now it's not being advertised or sold as such though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Touché) by c0lo on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:43AM (12 children)
Then, is it fair to say that, with you, the morality is for money?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:04AM (11 children)
Absolutely not. There is a difference between advertising and having already sold a public communication service and simply owning a thing capable of providing such.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:16AM (8 children)
Trying to get your position here:
- it's immoral for the owner of a printing press opened for business to refuse a service... but...
- it would be moral for him to ask for some extra zeros price? (eg to allow for lost business when other people chose to no longer do business with him due to his choice. Make the business owner an alt-right supporter which should make a moral choice of offering services to print alt-left materials).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:34AM (7 children)
It would be immoral for the owner of a print shop to refuse business, regardless of content. It would not be immoral for a private citizen who has a printing press for his own personal use to refuse to rent it out.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:40AM (5 children)
Would it be moral for the business to charge extra for orders running contrary to the interest of his business?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:49AM (4 children)
Newp.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 15 2017, @02:01AM (3 children)
So, you are OK with a business owner loosing profit to uphold freedom of speech, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @02:22AM (2 children)
Clarification:
I'm morally against someone who has already sold a service saying you cannot now use said service because your custom might be held against them. Example: Not selling gay wedding cakes. I do not believe it should be illegal though.
I am not against refusing service, new or established, if the use of that service actually and directly interferes with your ability to conduct business. Example 1: Banning mass spammers on a news discussion site. Example 2: Dropping DDoS packets.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 15 2017, @02:34AM
Thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday August 15 2017, @02:43AM
Gay wedding cakes are an issue because of discrimination against PEOPLE (as a class), not over the nature of the "custom."
Patrick Stewart had a comment over this issue a year or two back that was quite insightful and pointed directly to this distinction. He was concerned that a baker was forced to provide a MESSAGE cake, i.e., one that said "support gay marriage." Doing so is co-opting the skills of another person to force them to participate in your cause. He was absolutely opposed to bakers refusing to sell CAKES to gay PEOPLE, though. I.e., the denial of service here was over the nature of the cake requested, not the client's sexuality (the latter of course being discriminatory).
Similarly, I don't have a problem at all saying it's immoral for a baker to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, exactly the same as a cake the baker would provide to a straight couple. I think it's a much more complex issue to say that a baker should be required to provide a GAY WEDDING CAKE (i.e., a cake that the baker would not generally make REGARDLESS of the CLIENT) with a message or whatever explicitly supporting gay weddings.
If you follow your "it's immoral to refuse to provide a service regardless of message," how far does that go beyond print shops and bakers? Are actors required to take ANY gig offered regardless of message? If somebody sends an actor a script that requires them to stand in a public square and pretend to be a protester in support of the Daily Stormer, is the actor required to do so? After all, the actor offers a service...
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday August 15 2017, @02:28AM
This is BS, sorry. There are all sorts of valid MORAL reasons to deny service on the basis of content. Notably, requests to print stuff that would support IMMORAL actions (not to mention ILLEGAL ones).
If you're going to talk about morality in generic absolutist terms, let's be logical here. If you want to declare that it's a moral decision about whether to print or not print something, then surely it's important to consider the MORALITY of the thing printed!
And to be clear, I'm not condoning blanket refusal of service for vague "moral" reasons here -- but you're the one bringing up morality. Once you get away from legality and enter the realm of morals, things do become fuzzy and up to the individual. It's therefore impossible to make logical statements like "It's immoral in all cases for X to refuse to do Y" unless Y is summarily moral. Once you introduce morality into the equation, you necessarily must consider Y's morality.
Hence why we don't tend to legislate in those terms, because it will result in all sorts of nonsense. Rather, it's better to stick to stuff like -- "It's okay for a print shop owner to refuse to print something ILLEGAL or which might be construed to support ILLEGAL activities" and leave morality out of the picture. There will be a judgment call in many cases about whether something might be construed as supporting illegal acts, but that's a question of law, not morality.
Of course, what this thread seems to be about is neither morality NOR law, but rather whether it's moral for a business owner to refuse service as a business decision, regardless of morality or ethics. Because that's what we're really talking about. And I really don't see why any service provider (print shop or otherwise) can't have his/her own set of personal business practices. If I'm a photographer, I can say, "I take pictures for weddings, but I won't take pictures for proms" because I find I make more money doing weddings. If I'm a print shop owner, why can't I say, "I print posters, but not for Nazis" because I make more money if I don't print Nazis posters because it gets me a bad reputation?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:18AM
Says the masterful c0lo.
TMB responds:
Which I take to mean, morality is for enough money. TMB must be American!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:21AM
You argue morality and your belief in free speech, and then put qualifiers on a hypothetical. I think you might be suffering from too much narcissism to participate in this one, but at least I feel pretty sure you would uphold your morals. You got trapped cause you couldn't see the obvious bait about supporting free speech.
I'll take your bait though, they sold a service which included a legal contract agreed upon by Der Shitheads. Der Shitheads proceeded to be epically shitheaded and once the PR backlash became great enough the Company leveraged its right to terminate the contract.
You know why the Don't Tread On Me is a great libertarian symbol? Cause it leaves you with no legs to stand on!! *I'll show myself out*