5 ms·

I have been following this story, and each time a corp does this, Daily Stormer, a site 99% of people would never have any interest in, is framed and reinforced

by dfps 9y ago

I have been following this story, and each time a corp does this, Daily Stormer, a site 99% of people would never have any interest in, is framed and reinforced as an important piece that represents all our free speech (and braoder rights). Does anyone have a link to this site? I heard it had moved to Russia.

drewbuschhorn 9y ago
I think the Russians didn't accept the registration last I saw. If you're wanting to see what people are defending, it's all in the Internet Archive. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for roaches, but these are guys are cunning rats, so you need something stronger.
- dfps 9y ago
  Does it really matter what the ideas of some small group (as far as I know ineffectual) thinks or writes? How can their ideas/speech be more dangerous than limitations of speech on the web?
  - drewbuschhorn 9y ago
    I think you're confusing the sign for the signified. Is there any speech you'd consider more dangerous than limiting freedom of speech on the web?
    - dfps 9y ago
      I can't think of any speech that it would do less harm to limit than the limitation would do. Can you? If you can, I will give a fair effort to CMV.
      - drewbuschhorn 9y ago
        Ha, if you're that sure I doubt I could dissuade you. You might try the millions of other people out there cleverer than me who are willing to it give it go. But ask yourself, if you're that sure, what's your evidence? I 'd need some strong evidence I was on the right side to hold that absolutist of a belief.
      - TheDong 9y ago
        The classic example is someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. The reason that "free speech" is limited is that limiting it does almost no harm, and allowing it can result in human death. This actually follows well into the specific example of racist nazi propaganda. The argument is fairly similar; allowing that speech has the chance to, in a more roundabout way, result in human oppression and death. Limiting it isn't great (especially since it often draws some amount of attention to it), but it does seem plausible that by stopping that speech from getting out there, there's less chance of such a movement forming.
        MichaelGG 9y ago
        https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... There should not be limitations on speech. By your logic we should limit speech on engineering and communism as they also have potential for harming people.
        TheDong 9y ago
        The big difference is intent. Nazis / hate-speech intends to harm people. They are advocating for such harm. Engineering and communism typically don't, though where they do it should be shut down.
        dfps 9y ago
        I can't explain where the line is for the difference between saying that word at that time (although I suspect some lawyers might). I can see there would be a big difference though in yelping a word in that situation and being directly responsible for the harm it caused (mischief maybe?) and expressing a person's ideas and beliefs. The analogy you put doesn't work out, unfortunately, because ANY idea can result in human oppression and death. For example, the speech that civil rights leaders spoke and wrote that in a roundabout way caused injuries and deaths at protests motivated by them, the speech that fired up the American Revolution and other revolutions.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
      - adbge 9y ago
        You might enjoy Bostrom's paper on information hazards: https://nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf https://nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf
        drewbuschhorn 9y ago
        Nice! I had seen quotes from this, but didn't know where it came from originally. > It may be worth stressing, however, that even if one has an extremely strong intellectual commitment to truthseeking and public education, one can still legitimately and in good conscience explore the question of how some knowledge might be harmful. In fact, this very commitment demands that one does not shy away from such an exploration or from reporting openly on the findings.
      - geofft 9y ago
        A straightforward one, which I think has been well-accepted in Western legal thinking for centuries, is slander/libel. If I go around saying "Look, 'dfps is a Nazi," you can get the courts, and if necessary the government's monopoly on violence, to stop me. Another one that's extremely common is use of a trademark. I do not have a free speech right to say "I provide Microsoft-certified computer repair services." We believe there's more harm to society from me going around causing people to believe that than from me being unable to say that. Another one is unauthorized practice of law. I do not have a free speech right to say "I know how the GPL works and I can represent you in court." We believe it's more important to a free society that when someone says that, they're actually a trained and licensed lawyer who can competently represent you, and that the harm to you from me going in front of a judge and spouting nonsense on your behalf outweighs the harm from me being unable to speak freely about the GPL. Do you think that these restrictions on free speech are more harmful than the cases they seek to prevent?
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
gt_ 9y ago
I haven't seen it but even if it's as despicable as I imagine or worse, it's covered under the concept of the first amendment. I support the first amendment as a virtue of integrity. If you're an American who didn't think about the scope of the first amendment until now, well, that's gotta be embarrassing.
- DrJokepu 9y ago
  Why do you think this is related to the First Amendment?
  - JCzynski 9y ago
    Free speech is not just the right to speak unimpeded by the government, but the right to speak so that you can be heard. (You don't have to be listened to. But people must have the option.) Systematically coordinating to keep speech off the internet is a violation of their moral right to speak, even if it is technically legal.
- geofft 9y ago
  I am an American who thinks a lot about the entire scope of the First Amendment. Of course the First Amendment is not just, as written, an injunction on Congress, but also a statement of the ideals of a free society. It includes the right to freedom of assembly (by name) and association (not by name, but by clear caselaw), and Namecheap, as a private business, has the right to associate or not associate with whomever they want. A society that obligates a private business to provide business to everyone, whether by cultural norm or by Congressional law, is not a free society. There are a couple of protected categories, as stated both by the Constitution and by society's norms. Being a neo-Nazi is not one of them. The site's perfectly available. There are multiple links to it in the thread. No one's right to speech is being infringed.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    >A society that obligates a private business to provide business to everyone, whether by cultural norm or by Congressional law, is not a free society. You're probably the 5th person who has said this. Why do you think that's the only other option? Why give such an important issue so little consideration to alternatives?
jstanley 9y ago
> Does anyone have a link to this site? Via a Tor gateway: https://dstormer6em3i4km.onion.casa/ https://dstormer6em3i4km.onion.casa/
r721 9y ago
>Ru-Center, a private Moscow-based domain registrar, told RFE/RL on August 17 that the company received an official letter from Roskomnadzor requesting that the company look into possibly suspending the domain Dailystormer.ru. ... >Ru-Center spokesman Yegor Timofeyev told RFE/RL in an e-mail that Roskomnadzor's letter asked the company "to look into [the] possibility of register suspension due to extremist content of this domain." >"So we decided to suspend [the] domain Dailystormer.ru," he said. https://www.rferl.org/a/u-s-neo-nazi-website-russian-domain-daily-stormer/28680409.html https://www.rferl.org/a/u-s-neo-nazi-website-russian-domain-...

by dfps 9y ago

drewbuschhorn 9y ago

I think the Russians didn't accept the registration last I saw. If you're wanting to see what people are defending, it's all in the Internet Archive. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for roaches, but these are guys are cunning rats, so you need something stronger.

dfps 9y ago
Does it really matter what the ideas of some small group (as far as I know ineffectual) thinks or writes? How can their ideas/speech be more dangerous than limitations of speech on the web?
- drewbuschhorn 9y ago
  I think you're confusing the sign for the signified. Is there any speech you'd consider more dangerous than limiting freedom of speech on the web?
  - dfps 9y ago
    I can't think of any speech that it would do less harm to limit than the limitation would do. Can you? If you can, I will give a fair effort to CMV.
    - drewbuschhorn 9y ago
      Ha, if you're that sure I doubt I could dissuade you. You might try the millions of other people out there cleverer than me who are willing to it give it go. But ask yourself, if you're that sure, what's your evidence? I 'd need some strong evidence I was on the right side to hold that absolutist of a belief.
    - TheDong 9y ago
      The classic example is someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. The reason that "free speech" is limited is that limiting it does almost no harm, and allowing it can result in human death. This actually follows well into the specific example of racist nazi propaganda. The argument is fairly similar; allowing that speech has the chance to, in a more roundabout way, result in human oppression and death. Limiting it isn't great (especially since it often draws some amount of attention to it), but it does seem plausible that by stopping that speech from getting out there, there's less chance of such a movement forming.
      - MichaelGG 9y ago
        https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... There should not be limitations on speech. By your logic we should limit speech on engineering and communism as they also have potential for harming people.
        TheDong 9y ago
        The big difference is intent. Nazis / hate-speech intends to harm people. They are advocating for such harm. Engineering and communism typically don't, though where they do it should be shut down.
      - dfps 9y ago
        I can't explain where the line is for the difference between saying that word at that time (although I suspect some lawyers might). I can see there would be a big difference though in yelping a word in that situation and being directly responsible for the harm it caused (mischief maybe?) and expressing a person's ideas and beliefs. The analogy you put doesn't work out, unfortunately, because ANY idea can result in human oppression and death. For example, the speech that civil rights leaders spoke and wrote that in a roundabout way caused injuries and deaths at protests motivated by them, the speech that fired up the American Revolution and other revolutions.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
    - adbge 9y ago
      You might enjoy Bostrom's paper on information hazards: https://nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf https://nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf
      - drewbuschhorn 9y ago
        Nice! I had seen quotes from this, but didn't know where it came from originally. > It may be worth stressing, however, that even if one has an extremely strong intellectual commitment to truthseeking and public education, one can still legitimately and in good conscience explore the question of how some knowledge might be harmful. In fact, this very commitment demands that one does not shy away from such an exploration or from reporting openly on the findings.
    - geofft 9y ago
      A straightforward one, which I think has been well-accepted in Western legal thinking for centuries, is slander/libel. If I go around saying "Look, 'dfps is a Nazi," you can get the courts, and if necessary the government's monopoly on violence, to stop me. Another one that's extremely common is use of a trademark. I do not have a free speech right to say "I provide Microsoft-certified computer repair services." We believe there's more harm to society from me going around causing people to believe that than from me being unable to say that. Another one is unauthorized practice of law. I do not have a free speech right to say "I know how the GPL works and I can represent you in court." We believe it's more important to a free society that when someone says that, they're actually a trained and licensed lawyer who can competently represent you, and that the harm to you from me going in front of a judge and spouting nonsense on your behalf outweighs the harm from me being unable to speak freely about the GPL. Do you think that these restrictions on free speech are more harmful than the cases they seek to prevent?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]

gt_ 9y ago

I haven't seen it but even if it's as despicable as I imagine or worse, it's covered under the concept of the first amendment. I support the first amendment as a virtue of integrity. If you're an American who didn't think about the scope of the first amendment until now, well, that's gotta be embarrassing.

DrJokepu 9y ago
Why do you think this is related to the First Amendment?
- JCzynski 9y ago
  Free speech is not just the right to speak unimpeded by the government, but the right to speak so that you can be heard. (You don't have to be listened to. But people must have the option.) Systematically coordinating to keep speech off the internet is a violation of their moral right to speak, even if it is technically legal.
geofft 9y ago
I am an American who thinks a lot about the entire scope of the First Amendment. Of course the First Amendment is not just, as written, an injunction on Congress, but also a statement of the ideals of a free society. It includes the right to freedom of assembly (by name) and association (not by name, but by clear caselaw), and Namecheap, as a private business, has the right to associate or not associate with whomever they want. A society that obligates a private business to provide business to everyone, whether by cultural norm or by Congressional law, is not a free society. There are a couple of protected categories, as stated both by the Constitution and by society's norms. Being a neo-Nazi is not one of them. The site's perfectly available. There are multiple links to it in the thread. No one's right to speech is being infringed.
- Clubber 9y ago
  >A society that obligates a private business to provide business to everyone, whether by cultural norm or by Congressional law, is not a free society. You're probably the 5th person who has said this. Why do you think that's the only other option? Why give such an important issue so little consideration to alternatives?

jstanley 9y ago

> Does anyone have a link to this site? Via a Tor gateway: https://dstormer6em3i4km.onion.casa/ https://dstormer6em3i4km.onion.casa/

r721 9y ago

>Ru-Center, a private Moscow-based domain registrar, told RFE/RL on August 17 that the company received an official letter from Roskomnadzor requesting that the company look into possibly suspending the domain Dailystormer.ru. ... >Ru-Center spokesman Yegor Timofeyev told RFE/RL in an e-mail that Roskomnadzor's letter asked the company "to look into [the] possibility of register suspension due to extremist content of this domain." >"So we decided to suspend [the] domain Dailystormer.ru," he said. https://www.rferl.org/a/u-s-neo-nazi-website-russian-domain-daily-stormer/28680409.html https://www.rferl.org/a/u-s-neo-nazi-website-russian-domain-...