5 ms·

This is turning into a virtue signalling circle jerk. The one quote provided is nothing near incitement violence, in the legal sense. I'm now in the icky posit

by jayess 9y ago

This is turning into a virtue signalling circle jerk. The one quote provided is nothing near incitement violence, in the legal sense. I'm now in the icky position of defending Daily Sturmer because I believe in the First Amendment and this latest campaign against one web site feels so contrived and politically correct. Yes yes, I know that the First Amendment doesn't apply to Namecheap or godaddy or cloudflare. But this has gotten downright silly. As another commenter noted, these large companies have no compunction hosting/registering domains for sites that actually do incite violence and actively ruin people's lives... like jihadist groups or ripoff report, a site that makes it an active business model to defame people online, destroy lives and careers, and then extort people to remove that content. This whole daily sturmer campaign has gotten to the point of being nothing more than a way for companies to pretend like they care or want to prevent a type of speech they don't like, but in reality is picking on one site that is mild in comparison to the other things these companies tacitly approve of. Edit to add a link that apropos: The Seductive Appeal of the "Nazi Exception" https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-the-nazi-exception/ https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-t...

peteretep 9y ago
> like jihadist groups Is that true?
- jayess 9y ago
  http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/anonymous-opisis-cloudflare-refuses-block-service-pro-isis-websites-1495758 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/anonymous-opisis-cloudflare-refuses...
  - peteretep 9y ago
    I don't see any reference to Namecheap, the company in question there. Have I missed it?
    - jayess 9y ago
      I don't know about namecheap in particular. The point is that these companies are piling on the same site and they all host sites that are much worse than daily sturmer.
mc32 9y ago
I agree with you. We're in such a state of things that people feel compelled to upfront state that while they don't support the thoughts of these sites, they support their right to free speech. It used to be assumed that in supporting free speech one did not agree with the most vile of those expressions. Now we're compelled to say that up front lest someone conflate the two. This re-interpretation of free speech is just as likely to come back to apply to the people now in favor of kerbing free speech. One of the most obvious is religion and people holding views opposite to it. Or, what if you espouse Marxism. That could be incitement to violence, in this interpretation. Today one groups is in control of what acceptable speech is. Tomorrow it will be someone else. And I will still be supporting free speech whoever is under attack by the contextual free speechers.
- peteretep 9y ago
  > This re-interpretation of > free speech This is an exceptionally American-centric view. The rest of the civilised world outlawed hate speech and moved on a long time ago.
  - jayess 9y ago
    Good for you. We hold sacrosanct the view that free speech is free speech and governments shouldn't be the arbiters of what is and isn't "hate."
    - peteretep 9y ago
      No, you don't. https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=34258 https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=34258
      - pianom4n 9y ago
        No mention of the word "hate", because there are no exceptions for it.
dominotw 9y ago
I think all the new companies in America are in a bind. America's future is "diverse" based on projected population demographics. If I was incharge of one of these companies, I have no choice but to 'virtue signal'. This would literally be my thought process, 'Oh shit google banned them, we don't want to be called out as Nazis lets write a blog post and ban them'. I don't want to blame that guy from cloudfare or this person because they literally have no choice. I think this is only going to stop if "diverse group" of people come forward and oppose this visibly, which is borderline impossible.
croon 9y ago
This isn't a hindrance to free speech, neither legally or practically. That companies decide to exercise their free speech when a site either gets loud enough or vile enough is likely about practicality. About the link you posted in another comment pointing out that Cloudflare (and others) hosted ISIS material: 1) At the point they start removing those, they delve into a cat&mouse game that is both financially costly, as well as establishing a precedent in behaviour. It can be argued that that was reached now in regards to dailystormer, but not when considering the other point. 2) ISIS isn't being normalized within the states, and no one would ever believe that Cloudflare (or anyone else) supported the contents on those sites. Dailystormer both explicitly claimed that Cloudflare supported them, while the "alt-right" is being normalized by the POTUS. They exercised their right because they wanted (or rather their hand was forced) to make it explicit that their speech didn't mirror the site's. There are two sides to every coin, and both sides are free speech. I'll also add a link apropos of the topic, by the same author: "Speech Is Tyranny!" https://www.popehat.com/2009/07/01/speech-is-tyranny/ https://www.popehat.com/2009/07/01/speech-is-tyranny/

by jayess 9y ago

peteretep 9y ago

> like jihadist groups Is that true?

jayess 9y ago
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/anonymous-opisis-cloudflare-refuses-block-service-pro-isis-websites-1495758 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/anonymous-opisis-cloudflare-refuses...
- peteretep 9y ago
  I don't see any reference to Namecheap, the company in question there. Have I missed it?
  - jayess 9y ago
    I don't know about namecheap in particular. The point is that these companies are piling on the same site and they all host sites that are much worse than daily sturmer.

mc32 9y ago

I agree with you. We're in such a state of things that people feel compelled to upfront state that while they don't support the thoughts of these sites, they support their right to free speech. It used to be assumed that in supporting free speech one did not agree with the most vile of those expressions. Now we're compelled to say that up front lest someone conflate the two. This re-interpretation of free speech is just as likely to come back to apply to the people now in favor of kerbing free speech. One of the most obvious is religion and people holding views opposite to it. Or, what if you espouse Marxism. That could be incitement to violence, in this interpretation. Today one groups is in control of what acceptable speech is. Tomorrow it will be someone else. And I will still be supporting free speech whoever is under attack by the contextual free speechers.

peteretep 9y ago
> This re-interpretation of > free speech This is an exceptionally American-centric view. The rest of the civilised world outlawed hate speech and moved on a long time ago.
- jayess 9y ago
  Good for you. We hold sacrosanct the view that free speech is free speech and governments shouldn't be the arbiters of what is and isn't "hate."
  - peteretep 9y ago
    No, you don't. https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=34258 https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=34258
    - pianom4n 9y ago
      No mention of the word "hate", because there are no exceptions for it.

dominotw 9y ago

I think all the new companies in America are in a bind. America's future is "diverse" based on projected population demographics. If I was incharge of one of these companies, I have no choice but to 'virtue signal'. This would literally be my thought process, 'Oh shit google banned them, we don't want to be called out as Nazis lets write a blog post and ban them'. I don't want to blame that guy from cloudfare or this person because they literally have no choice. I think this is only going to stop if "diverse group" of people come forward and oppose this visibly, which is borderline impossible.

croon 9y ago

This isn't a hindrance to free speech, neither legally or practically. That companies decide to exercise their free speech when a site either gets loud enough or vile enough is likely about practicality. About the link you posted in another comment pointing out that Cloudflare (and others) hosted ISIS material: 1) At the point they start removing those, they delve into a cat&mouse game that is both financially costly, as well as establishing a precedent in behaviour. It can be argued that that was reached now in regards to dailystormer, but not when considering the other point. 2) ISIS isn't being normalized within the states, and no one would ever believe that Cloudflare (or anyone else) supported the contents on those sites. Dailystormer both explicitly claimed that Cloudflare supported them, while the "alt-right" is being normalized by the POTUS. They exercised their right because they wanted (or rather their hand was forced) to make it explicit that their speech didn't mirror the site's. There are two sides to every coin, and both sides are free speech. I'll also add a link apropos of the topic, by the same author: "Speech Is Tyranny!" https://www.popehat.com/2009/07/01/speech-is-tyranny/ https://www.popehat.com/2009/07/01/speech-is-tyranny/