3 ms·

I've never heard of Daily Stormer before now. I have no idea who they are, what their beliefs are (although I can fathom a guess), or anything else about them.

I've never heard of Daily Stormer before now. I have no idea who they are, what their beliefs are (although I can fathom a guess), or anything else about them. As someone who supports "online rights", however, I certainly believe that this web site should have equal access to publish content online. To believe otherwise -- regardless of the content -- is censorship and I am 100% against that. It is a very slippery slope. For anyone looking for a host, you might consider NearlyFreeSpeech.NET [0]. Their Terms and Conditions of Service ("TACOS") [1] are pretty basic and straightforward. [0]: https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net [1]: https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/terms https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/terms

PinguTS 9y ago
Free speech != hate speech
- kazoolist 9y ago
  'Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”' - SCOTUS opinion for Matal v Tam, June 2017
- srslack 9y ago
  There's no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. GoDaddy here, however, is probably free to deny service but not free to take their US TLD away from them. There is probably an interesting discussion about US TLD's here, though, and property rights inherent to them. On any other TLD, the domain would have probably been seized long ago. But, given the climate, it's clear that this discussion is not going to happen.
  - rys 9y ago
    .com is a gTLD and does not belong to the US.
    - srslack 9y ago
      >does not belong to the US It's a US-based TLD, the authority being Verisign. The point is that GoDaddy can tell them to take it elsewhere, but as far as the registry is concerned it's not going to be seized and it's not going to be revoked. Not unless you have a court order. And, lacking any real criminality, there's really shaky first amendment/jurisdiction issues. Not even getting into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
- toast0 9y ago
  In the US, hate speech is free speech. Other countries ,especially those in the EU, have different definitions; individuals are also free to form their own definitions. However, it is very dangerous for government to suppress speech, especially if it's speech that the majority of people find distasteful. Let the court of public opinion try those who speech hateful speech, but not the court of law. Certainly, some speech is unlawful, namely incitement to criminal actions, specific threats, and copyright infringement.
matttproud 9y ago
How cute: pluralists loaning non-pluralists a piece of rope — the same rope the latter will happily hang the former with.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
beebmam 9y ago
White supremacists without a doubt are terrorists. Do terrorist organizations deserve a place on the internet where like-minded people can communicate and meet each other? Of all terrorist organizations, Nazis should not have any platform to organize at all. They've demonstrated what their goals are, and my family has suffered greatly because of them.
- snakeanus 9y ago
  > Do terrorist organizations deserve a place on the internet where like-minded people can communicate and meet each other? Everyone does.
  - sli 9y ago
    Sure, but no one is required to give them that platform. They can provide it themselves if they like, but no one can be forced to give them a platform. That would be just ripe for abuse if that were the case.
sli 9y ago
You're seemingly implying that GoDaddy should be legally forced to host any client they get and that is simply not the case. They are not beholden to the first amendment in the same was that the government is, and they are not in any way obligated to host things they disagree with or things that violate their TOS. For example, 1&1 bans pictures of celebrities from being hosted on their service (or did at once point, maybe they don't know, I can't say for certain). This street works two ways, whether we like it or not. I am no fan of GoDaddy at all, but unless they're outright lying about their TOS, they are not overstepping any boundaries. Having a view does not grant you a right to a platform.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

PinguTS 9y ago

Free speech != hate speech

kazoolist 9y ago
'Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”' - SCOTUS opinion for Matal v Tam, June 2017
srslack 9y ago
There's no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. GoDaddy here, however, is probably free to deny service but not free to take their US TLD away from them. There is probably an interesting discussion about US TLD's here, though, and property rights inherent to them. On any other TLD, the domain would have probably been seized long ago. But, given the climate, it's clear that this discussion is not going to happen.
- rys 9y ago
  .com is a gTLD and does not belong to the US.
  - srslack 9y ago
    >does not belong to the US It's a US-based TLD, the authority being Verisign. The point is that GoDaddy can tell them to take it elsewhere, but as far as the registry is concerned it's not going to be seized and it's not going to be revoked. Not unless you have a court order. And, lacking any real criminality, there's really shaky first amendment/jurisdiction issues. Not even getting into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
toast0 9y ago
In the US, hate speech is free speech. Other countries ,especially those in the EU, have different definitions; individuals are also free to form their own definitions. However, it is very dangerous for government to suppress speech, especially if it's speech that the majority of people find distasteful. Let the court of public opinion try those who speech hateful speech, but not the court of law. Certainly, some speech is unlawful, namely incitement to criminal actions, specific threats, and copyright infringement.

matttproud 9y ago

How cute: pluralists loaning non-pluralists a piece of rope — the same rope the latter will happily hang the former with.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

beebmam 9y ago

White supremacists without a doubt are terrorists. Do terrorist organizations deserve a place on the internet where like-minded people can communicate and meet each other? Of all terrorist organizations, Nazis should not have any platform to organize at all. They've demonstrated what their goals are, and my family has suffered greatly because of them.

snakeanus 9y ago
> Do terrorist organizations deserve a place on the internet where like-minded people can communicate and meet each other? Everyone does.
- sli 9y ago
  Sure, but no one is required to give them that platform. They can provide it themselves if they like, but no one can be forced to give them a platform. That would be just ripe for abuse if that were the case.

sli 9y ago

You're seemingly implying that GoDaddy should be legally forced to host any client they get and that is simply not the case. They are not beholden to the first amendment in the same was that the government is, and they are not in any way obligated to host things they disagree with or things that violate their TOS. For example, 1&1 bans pictures of celebrities from being hosted on their service (or did at once point, maybe they don't know, I can't say for certain). This street works two ways, whether we like it or not. I am no fan of GoDaddy at all, but unless they're outright lying about their TOS, they are not overstepping any boundaries. Having a view does not grant you a right to a platform.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]