Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday August 14 2017, @10:51PM   Printer-friendly
from the thugs-and-their-thug-accomplices dept.

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.

[1] https://www.dailystormer.com/heather-heyer-woman-killed-in-road-rage-incident-was-a-fat-childless-32-year-old-slut/

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


Original Submission #1   Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by hemocyanin on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:05AM (19 children)

    by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:05AM (#553979) Journal

    You don't have to hear it again. But once it becomes so easy to silence assholes like this, it will become easier to silence any dissent, even that which is well reasoned and without violent under/overtones.

    https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/while-everyone-frets-about-state-censorship-corporate-censorship-tightens-the-noose-c357e3bdd95d [medium.com]

    ... Americans would flip out if their government ever started overtly censoring the First Amendment rights of any group, and then you’d have unrest throughout the nation with a risk of full-scale revolution from a large and heavily-armed populace. Much easier and more effective to use the private corporations that these same plutocrats own to censor speech which threatens their rule instead.

    In an article titled “Google Censors Block Access to CounterPunch and Other Progressive Sites,” CounterPunch reports that lefty outlets like itself and World Socialist Website have seen immense decreases in Google traffic due to the search engine’s new policies, as has the nonpartisan WikiLeaks. ...

    In a corporatist oligarchy, corporate censorship is government censorship, since corporate power is not separated in any meaningful way from government power. An extensive 2014 study by Princeton University showed that ordinary Americans have no influence whatsoever over the way their government behaves, but the wealthy have a great deal of influence due to legalized bribery in the form of corporate lobbying and campaign donations. The owners of gargantuan multinational corporations and banks dictate how Official Washington behaves, and if they own large chunks of media they help control the way mainstream America thinks and votes as well.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:56AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:56AM (#554024)

    There's a pending submission [soylentnews.org] about that. It's been pending since Wednesday.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:19AM (1 child)

      by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:19AM (#554062) Journal

      I have noticed that the Google News feed has degraded so much, that it is basically just the Washington Post RSS feed (I have the WAPO in my /etc/hosts).

      I'm in the market for new news aggregator to check in on for my news, because Google's has turned to absolute crap.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:23AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:23AM (#554093)

        Why? Isn't soylentnews.org... mmm... phantastic?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:27AM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:27AM (#554150)

    It has not been easy, and they're still spewing murder and death threats and venom.

    STFU, go outside, and punch a white supremacist. Make them afraid to speak. They've initiated the violence, and you have a duty to defend yourself. The human rights that they're trying to remove from selected subgroups? If neonazis can remove their human rights, they can remove your human rights.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @09:44AM (7 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @09:44AM (#554184)

      They've initiated the violence, and you have a duty to defend yourself.

      Antifa initiated the violence. That is what they do and they'll tell you themselves (1 [cnn.com] 2 [bbc.com])

      • (Score: 3, Disagree) by Immerman on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:37PM (6 children)

        by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:37PM (#554285)

        As soon as anyone starts voicing Nazi rhetoric, the violence has already begun.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @09:01PM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @09:01PM (#554433)

          So, you say words are cause for violence. Keep that in mind when you open your mouth to say 'hi' and get a punch in the face. Totally justified violence, according to you.

          • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday August 16 2017, @02:37AM (4 children)

            by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday August 16 2017, @02:37AM (#554530)

            Just words? No.

            Publicly allying yourself with Nazis? Yes. The minute someone allies themselves with those specific ideals, they are declaring themselves an existential threat to anyone who doesn't fit their arbitrary ideals, and should be treated as such. Especially in the face of a president and administration that seems all too eager to feed that mentality for his own ends.

            We've seen where this road leads, and many wondered how the Nazi's ever managed to take over Germany. Well this is how it started. We cannot let these seeds take root.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @08:52AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @08:52AM (#554615)

              I repeat: It is OK to punch a Nazi in the face! Some times, that is the only way to get them to wake up! And, if the are swearing loyalty to the enemy (vanquished) of the United States, how is that any different than swearing loyalty to the Caliphate of ISIS? Punch them in the face. It is not "alt-left" violence, it is American patriotism!!

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 16 2017, @12:21PM (2 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 16 2017, @12:21PM (#554675) Journal

              Publicly allying yourself with Nazis? Yes. The minute someone allies themselves with those specific ideals, they are declaring themselves an existential threat to anyone who doesn't fit their arbitrary ideals, and should be treated as such. Especially in the face of a president and administration that seems all too eager to feed that mentality for his own ends.

              What's existential about that threat? Last I checked a few hundred Nazis were just a threat for property damage.

              We've seen where this road leads, and many wondered how the Nazi's ever managed to take over Germany. Well this is how it started. We cannot let these seeds take root.

              Perhaps they ought to look at history and see where the road actually led? While significant parts have been concealed from the public, it's still a fairly obvious trail. A key part that so frequently gets ignored is that Germany's government of the 1920s was imposed by victorious enemies and was part of humiliating and onerous restrictions imposed by those enemies in the notorious Treaty of Versailles. The Weimar Republic had little in the way of credibility as a result.

              Further, Germany immediately broke the treaty covertly - such as maintaining a secret General Staff which coordinated new technology and strategy development (for example, the blitzkrieg strategy and the military gear necessary to implement the blitzkrieg such as tanks and dive bomber planes) and conducting black ops (one of the spooks, Kurt von Schleicher [wikipedia.org] who apparently was responsible for directing much of this black ops activity, including killing people to hide the violations of the Treaty of Versailles later became the Chancellor of Germany prior to Hitler).

              Thus, there was massive institutional opposition to the Weimar Republic, from the military and much of the rest of the government. Similarly, there was cultural opposition to the Republic from business leaders and many of the general public (the latter who were highly receptive to the Nazis populist message that they would make Germany great again).

              This opposition finally found a way to destroy the republic in 1932 with the combination of President Hindenburg and several collaborating Chancellors. First, they took over [wikipedia.org] the Free State of Prussia in 1932 under Chancellor Franz von Papen. When he proved too unpopular to be the strong leader that these anti-republic forces wanted, von Schleicher gave it a go. He turned out unsatisfactory as well. By this time (1933), Hitler had grown in popularity to become the obstacle to appointing any more Hindenburg favorites and thus, Hitler was able to contrive his appointment to Chancellor. He proved to be a sufficiently strong leader to destroy the Weimar Republic (in 1934) after Hindenburg's death and then completely take over Germany into his own warped image. And thus, the tool became the master.

              It wasn't words that enabled Nazis to take over Germany, it was a combination of terrible economic conditions, a fully discredited government, and powerful interests working hard to undermine and overthrow the republic which did so. Hitler was fortunate in that he had enough political power to take over the government and country at this key transition point, but he didn't create any of the conditions that enabled him to do so.

              Further, for most of the history of the Nazi party prior to their takeover of Germany, they were a persecuted minority. It was this very persecution that popularized them and enabled them. For example, Hitler was a ex-military drunk prior to his "Beer Hall Putsch" (an attempted coup of the Bavarian state government). It was his incredibly flawed trial for treason (and subsequent publishing of his autobiography, Mein Kampf) that catapulted him from a local, moderately influential protestor to a successful populist with a large and growing following. Further, the Nazis routinely fell afoul of libel and hate speech laws in Wiemar Germany. That didn't stop them, but instead provided more support and publicity for their propaganda as a besieged minority working to make Germany great again.

              Top down state or society suppression of radical views doesn't work (and we see it not working in Europe today). It is far better to engage with superior argument and ideas. And maybe don't make an economic mess like with the span of time since the year 2000 in the US. That would help too.

              • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday August 17 2017, @05:31PM (1 child)

                by Immerman (3985) on Thursday August 17 2017, @05:31PM (#555451)

                One woman was killed just in this instance - they were clearly a pretty damned existential threat to her. And racial violence is everywhere in this country, and getting worse.

                But yeah, a few isolated Nazi rallies would be of limited danger on their own. But perhaps you missed the part where this sort of thing is becoming increasingly common, while the freaking President, if not openly condoning them in as many words, is clearly in no hurry to condemn them, using language so gently couched that the Nazi, KKK, etc leaders have openly cited it as support for their cause - which he has likewise declined to deny.

                Meanwhile, while even the Republican Congressfolk have declined to defend his statements, there's also precious little condemnation, of him or the movement, coming from that quarter. I'd say that's pretty F-ing damning right there. Signs are we're entering a point of societal flux here, and one that our leaders seem in no hurry to fight against.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 17 2017, @11:17PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 17 2017, @11:17PM (#555614) Journal

                  One woman was killed just in this instance - they were clearly a pretty damned existential threat to her.

                  Last I checked the rest of the world wasn't endanger with her. And how does one death make current Nazis more existential a threat than lightning strikes or poisoning due to peanuts?

                  But yeah, a few isolated Nazi rallies would be of limited danger on their own. But perhaps you missed the part where this sort of thing is becoming increasingly common, while the freaking President, if not openly condoning them in as many words, is clearly in no hurry to condemn them, using language so gently couched that the Nazi, KKK, etc leaders have openly cited it as support for their cause - which he has likewise declined to deny.

                  What strong evidence for your concerns!

  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday August 15 2017, @04:17PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday August 15 2017, @04:17PM (#554301)

    > Americans would flip out if their government ever started overtly censoring the First Amendment rights of any group, and then you’d have unrest
    > throughout the nation with a risk of full-scale revolution from a large and heavily-armed populace.

    Bullshit.
    The revolution was delayed to next Wednesday, because Monday night is football, and on Tuesday there's a doctor's appointment, softball practice, and binge-watch don't-give-me-spoilers the last three episodes of $popular_series.

    The Americans have been tamed with things. Too many have "too much to lose" to help a few gun-toting people have a revolution over censorship of unpleasant people.

  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:33PM (1 child)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:33PM (#554344) Journal

    But once it becomes so easy to silence assholes like this...

    As far as I can tell there was only one person silenced by this shit-show. Her name was Heather Heyer.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @08:38AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @08:38AM (#557437)

      Fuck off with your useless emotional appeals.

  • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday August 17 2017, @01:04PM (3 children)

    by urza9814 (3954) on Thursday August 17 2017, @01:04PM (#555270) Journal

    ... Americans would flip out if their government ever started overtly censoring the First Amendment rights of any group, and then you’d have unrest throughout the nation with a risk of full-scale revolution from a large and heavily-armed populace. Much easier and more effective to use the private corporations that these same plutocrats own to censor speech which threatens their rule instead.

    Seriously? This country has arrested government employees for publicly reading the Declaration of Independence. Ever heard of the Sedition acts? The McCarthy trials? This government has been enacting various restrictions on the freedom of speech since that amendment was first written, so where's that unrest and revolution?

    Sure, it's easier for them when they don't have to get their hands dirty, but don't pretend they *can't*, because they have in the past and they certainly will again.

    • (Score: 2) by martyb on Saturday August 19 2017, @01:14PM (2 children)

      by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 19 2017, @01:14PM (#556339) Journal

      Seriously? This country has arrested government employees for publicly reading the Declaration of Independence. Ever heard of the Sedition acts? The McCarthy trials? This government has been enacting various restrictions on the freedom of speech since that amendment was first written, so where's that unrest and revolution?

      Sure, it's easier for them when they don't have to get their hands dirty, but don't pretend they *can't*, because they have in the past and they certainly will again.

      You raise good points and, for the most part, I agree.

      I'm curious, though, about "arrested government employees for publicly reading the Declaration of Independence" as I'd not heard of that before... do you happen to have a link for that?

      No snark intended, I''m genuinely interested. Thanks!

      --
      Wit is intellect, dancing.
      • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday August 21 2017, @11:37AM (1 child)

        by urza9814 (3954) on Monday August 21 2017, @11:37AM (#556977) Journal

        Originally read it in a book many years ago, but this seems to reference the same case:
        http://missoulian.com/news/local/missoula-witness-to-history-of-industrial-workers-of-the-world/article_a80ba83e-9b67-11de-942e-001cc4c002e0.html [missoulian.com]

        A young logger stepped to the soapbox and started to read the Declaration of Independence. He was cuffed. A civil engineer for the U.S. Forest Service named Herman Tucker saw what was happening from the Forest Service office above. He rushed down, tried to continue the job and was arrested as well.

        • (Score: 2) by martyb on Monday August 21 2017, @10:57PM

          by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 21 2017, @10:57PM (#557263) Journal

          Originally read it in a book many years ago, but this seems to reference the same case:
          http://missoulian.com/news/local/missoula-witness-to-history-of-industrial-workers-of-the-world/article_a80ba83e-9b67-11de-942e-001cc4c002e0.html [missoulian.com] [missoulian.com]

          A young logger stepped to the soapbox and started to read the Declaration of Independence. He was cuffed. A civil engineer for the U.S. Forest Service named Herman Tucker saw what was happening from the Forest Service office above. He rushed down, tried to continue the job and was arrested as well.

          Thank you for that! I found it a fascinating read, and was quite impressed with their resourcefulness and planning... like arranging so they'd get arrested before dinner time, so the town would face the additional economic burden of feeding them.

          I wonder how a similar situation would be handled, today? Would the governor call out the national guard to protect the peace? Institute zones where the protestors were permitted to speak, and block them from speaking elsewhere?

          "The Times They Are a-Changin'"

          --
          Wit is intellect, dancing.