Not really. I don't care for what they say, but it's important that they have the ability to say it. It's concerning that private companies, through registrars have the ability to erase viewpoints from the public internet. More signs that the internet be treated as a right.
I liken the internet to press. Most of it sucks, but having it and being able to freely speak through it, is essential to liberty.
I mean, if we as a society don't believe people like this should have a free internet like everyone else, we deserve the closed internet we will get. Freedom sucks because you have to listen to a lot of assholes, but it's much better than the alternative.
They can still say whatever they like, and, y'know what? Their fascist readers can even still get to it using their IP address-- at least, they could if they weren't hiding it behind CloudFlare.
This isn't censorship. As far as I know, no one has the "right" to an entry in the public DNS, nor is any registrar required to do business with Nazis. Registrars have the right to free association and speech too.
But besides that, my understanding is that though the internet is free, the various entities on the internet are equally free to refuse service. After all, if they were otherwise obligated, that would imply X's freedom can override Y's freedom, which also contradicts the nebulous ideal of freedom.
There are many privacy/free-speech oriented registrars and hosts. I hate being in the position to defend these types so often from short-sighted moralizers, but it absolutely won't work.
Exactly. This edges Google closer towards monopoly status and competition laws, I think.
But I wonder where on the internet unpopular speech will be hosted?
Even if the UN (and nations) declare internet a human right, where will content be hosted? Will the UN be able to force nations to change their laws to not persecute unpopular speech?
The First Amendment isn't a subsidy for speech. It just says you can say the most offensive thing you can cook up but no one owes you their ears, papers, or servers to furnish an audience.
the problem is that sometimes allowing one person free speech has the effect of silencing others. looking at history and the current political situation in the us, I think allowing neonazis free reign to express themselves does far more to stifle free speech than desiring censoring them does because of the threats of violence, both explicit and implicit, laced throughout everything they say and do.
Unproven but likely. The "defaced" page was posted through their CMS (WordPress), which is rather atypical for defaced domains. The writer's promise to only take the domain down for 24 hours is also quite unusual.
What seems most likely to me is that this was used as an excuse to take down their content until their domain was transferred away from GoDaddy.
Tbh, I doubt Google knows they're the Stormers' registrar yet; you can transfer domains automatically.
CloudFlare doesn't provide hosting, it's a reverse proxy. But, if you believe http://www.crimeflare.com/cfs.html, the actual web server sitting behind dailystormer.com is hosted by online.net, of France.
Right. I use CF. I just meant that there has been criticism aimed at CF for 'protecting' (providing service to) unpopular speech (even harmful stuff like IS), and I think I read they were unwilling to refuse service to anybody.
France, hey? I've actually heard France is competitive with US when it comes to internet and free speech. Do you think that's true? I wonder which country most protects speech on the internet?
Is there any country that protects all speech that you know of?
(Related to the law you mentioned, in Germany they also have laws that are reactions to WWII, and they arrested some Chinese tourists for making Nazi salutes for tourist photos outside a government building last week.)
Protecting speech is often in tension with other individual liberties that are supposed to be protected, and the purpose of government is to arbitrate those disputes. I don't think there are any that grant unfettered protection to speech-- a government that permitted advocation of treason, for instance, probably wouldn't last very long.
It is definitely possible to have complete protection of speech. It's a choice, and the repercussions of it would not involve great harm, although since the 1950s we seem to be getting closer (and sometimes further).
Treason is only possible if a country is at war (ie has an "enemy"). The speech would be protected as it is now (that wouldn't be the crime they break), but they could be found guilty of committing treason by the same (speech in this case) act.
