5 ms·

Rackspace Shuts Down Koran-Burning Web Site

17 points by 1SockChuck 16y ago

subpixel 16y ago
Well, good.
greenlblue 16y ago
Rackspace did the right thing. This is not a free speech issue since there are more articulate ways of expressing your dislike of some belief system without desecrating objects that a certain group considers valuable.
- tptacek 16y ago
  No, it's not a "free speech issue" because you have no right under the Constitution to post whatever you'd like on Rackspace's private property, and the contract you enter into to post anything there specifically enjoins you from posting "harassing" or "hate" speech. Sorry to be pedantic, but people have weird ideas about what the 1st Amendment actually means. "Congress shall make no law" does not mean "Rackspace shall make no rule".
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    In other words, you have no free speech on the internet because all the routers, wires, servers, links, modems are the property of their owners and they are free to censor whatever you post as long as they have sufficiently ambiguous clauses on their contracts that may or may not involve you as a part. How far can you bend your constitution before it breaks?
    - tptacek 16y ago
      I demand the immediate use of your HN account to make fun of your understanding how how our Constitution works. Free speech.
      - rbanffy 16y ago
        You have your own HN account and I will do nothing to prevent you from poking fun of whatever you want.
    - ax0n 16y ago
      You aren't contractually bound when you use bizarre routers and wires, but your ISP probably holds you to a similar agreement. Also, you can do whatever you want until you get shut down, but a court of law will see it from the contract side. You can feel free to say whatever you want using your own resources, but if you're using someone else's and they don't like what you're doing, then tough shit.
    - NateLawson 16y ago
      You have a good point that a private monopoly can ultimately limit public rights like free speech. If there's no alternative provider that is willing to host hate speech, you can't broadcast it in that form. I can think of three ways to provide for that: 1. Public servers, possibly sponsored by the govt 2. Regulation of Internet access run by private companies 3. Waiting for private competition to create such a space The first one worked well in the early days of the Internet. There were lots of rules against commercial use of publicly-funded computers but little content regulation. Despite what some may think about the govt, it has lost most times it has attempted to limit free speech. Regulation sort of works for railroads and telecom lines. Bell gets a monopoly on wiring but they have to provide access to disabled people, can't do discriminatory pricing, etc. The last one is least likely to succeed. I don't know of any private US company that advertises themselves as "no takedown unless required by court order". It seems there is little profit advantage in marginalized speech compared to the cost of defending against attacks on it. While it's good to see Ipredator and BayImg providing services with this kind of guarantee, the fact that such an effort only seems possible in Sweden should give us pause.
      - devicenull 16y ago
        https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/ https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/ is one I can think of.
    - TWAndrews 16y ago
      Well, yes. One of the great things about the internet is that its regulation, as compared to other industries is relatively light. The flip side of that is that the government has little or no legal basis to ensure that people have a platform from which to speak.
  - greenlblue 16y ago
    As good citizens of a country Rackspace personnel also abide by certain rules and one of those is abiding by the laws of the land. The US constitution is pretty explicit about limiting expression and free speech so I can see how it could be argued that this is a free speech issue but that was not the point I was making.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      "When operating a communications service, you must provide equal access to all views" is not one of the laws of the land. It isn't even a law that governs network television stations, and they run on spectrum borrowed from the people.
      - strlen 16y ago
        To be pedantic, according to Supreme Court, states can pass laws that extend the freedom of speech onto private property; some states e.g., California do so, but they target de-facto public spaces such as shopping centres, not servers in a rack: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Ro...
    - strlen 16y ago
      > As good citizens of a country Rackspace personnel also abide by certain rules and one of those is abiding by the laws of the land. The law of the land very explicitly says "Congress shall make no law restricting..." not "Rackspace shall shut down no website".
      - greenlblue 16y ago
        This is why people make a distinction between the spirit and the letter of the law. The point is that congress represents the people and if every private citizen starts censoring everything on their property well then technically congress is not limiting or restricting anything but you are left with a society that is devoid of any free speech.
  - Andrew_Quentin 16y ago
    Supposing it was New York Time, sure something quite unimaginable, but supposing this web host decides to terminate their contract and no other host in the country would provide them with a hosting service, would that be an infringement of freedom of speech? Perhaps if we view it from the perspective of the black letter of the law, that is the constitution, the highest law of that country, it might not be an infringement. However freedom of speech goes beyond the constitution, it is a principle ingrained in our society and culture. To address your differences between private and public, a newspaper of course has no obligation to give him space in their platform, nor the television, but the internet is different. The former two are selective, the internet is free for all. If private bodies are able to go around policing the kind of content that is to be found on the net, the difference between them and the government is a mere technicality.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  So, free speech is only allowed for adequately articulate forms of expression, as judged by Rackspace management. No. This is a free speech issue. Those who feel offended are also free to burn bibles and desecrate whatever they feel proper. As much as we disagree with the book burning festival (it is a stupid thing to do and there are much more articulate ways to express disagreement with Islam), I find freedom of speech is a much more important issue than the sensitivities of religious groups.
  - mx12 16y ago
    I would disagree. They signed the contract with rackspace that said they would abide by their polices and if they violated them, they would shut down the site. Nothing is stopping the church from hosting their own website.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      Can you sign off a right your constitution gives you?
      - tptacek 16y ago
        That's a nonsense question, because the Constitution doesn't give you the right to use Rackspace's computers in the first place. Rackspace owns them, and has the understandable perception that it's their choice how they get used, not 'rbanffy's.
        bluesnowmonkey 16y ago
        Counter-example: You own a bookstore located in a mall -- leased space. The mall's managing company says you are no longer allowed to sell Bibles. Now I'll apply your logic. "The Constitution doesn't give you the right to use that mall space in the first place. The mall owns it, and has the understandable perception that it's their choice how it gets used, not yours." Hopefully you can see that something has gone wrong, regardless of legal compliance. Freedom is neither bestowed by a piece of paper nor by men with guns or gavels. It is a cultural trait manifest in our actions. We're not free unless we live like free people. Would you call yourself a musician if you had no instrument to play? How can you claim to have free speech, if your medium of communication is removed whenever you try to say something unpopular?
haseman 16y ago
While I like this in theory (because burning the Koran en mass is a stupid idea) I'm troubled by it in practice. Does this mean that if I espouse on an idea that Rackspace doesn't like they'll pull my service? Obviously this has nothing to do with the 1st amendment... Rackspace may terminate my use of their property by grounds in the contract I've signed with them. I'm not sure, however, I like the idea of a hosting company policing the ideas that are posted on their servers.
- TWAndrews 16y ago
  It sounds like it, assuming the way your idea is espoused violates TOS that you agreed to.
  - haseman 16y ago
    Fair point, I guess if a movement to burn the Koran "...contains harassing content or hate speech" I have to wonder what other ideas and writings, in Rackspace's considered opinion, might violate that clause in their TOS? As this isn't a legal or constitutional issue, one presumes they aren't using the legal tests for hate speech/hate crimes. Is this a 'I'll know it when i see it' sorta test?
- pigbucket 16y ago
  It sounds kind of scary when you put it like that, but generally I've no principled objection to a server policing its hosted content for contract compliance as long as it's not the only hosting game in town. If I'm looking for a server, I get to choose whether I trust or want Rackspace. If I'm looking to provide a service, I get to choose whether I want to provide it to crazy dangerous guy. If the guy doesn't think he broke the contract (I don't know what he actually had on the site) let him complain. Otherwise, he can a) find another server that doesn't care about how nuts he is, b) set up his own server, c) exercise his free hate speech from his personal pulpit, or d) join the presumably already established subreddit for Bookburners against Censorship.
- photon_off 16y ago
  If Rackspace doesn't like your idea, and takes your idea down, you no longer pay Rackspace. Instead, you'll go and pay one of their competitors to host your message. Rackspace may like policing, but they probably would enjoy spending your money more. If all hosting companies decide that "Quran book-burning messages will not be hosted", then you have the freedom to start your own niche business that services these needs. Money: It makes the world go 'round.
TWAndrews 16y ago
People who think this is a free speech issue wrt Rackspace are confused about how the first amendment works. The right to free speech, is not the right to a platform from which to speak. This was the law-of-the land before the internet even existed. Back before Craigslist killed classified, news papers absolutely had terms which specified which content they would or wouldn't run.
- jgranby 16y ago
  The "constitutional" aspect (if there is one) isn't the issue, though. The issue is whether I, you, or anyone else, wants a web host that takes down web sites it disapproves of. A web host can take down websites for misusing apostrophes, if it is entitled to by contract (if there's a broadly drafted term in the contract, this might even be possible in the real world, not just hypothetically). But would you want to do business with them?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
gwright 16y ago
I'm usually impressed by the discussion on Hacker News but the amount of ignorance about the nature of the 1st Amendment and the difference between government and private actions in this discussion is disheartening. The US 1st Amendment is a restriction on government actions not a restriction on private actions or private contracts. There may be other legal reasons why private actions might be controlled or regulated but please don't point to the 1st Amendment in order to justify that control. Finally, where do people get the idea that the concept of 'free speech' includes the notion that other people, companies, or the government are required to support and assist you in communicating your message? The freedom to 'speak' without government coercion is not a guarantee that your speech won't be met with ridicule, criticism, rejection, or counterargument and appeals to your 'free speech' rights being violated when that happens is absurd.
boltofblue 16y ago
I understand why .... except..... there are about a billion images, jokes, articles, sites degrading Jesus Christ and advocating destroying Christianity

17 points by 1SockChuck 16y ago

Well, good.

Rackspace did the right thing. This is not a free speech issue since there are more articulate ways of expressing your dislike of some belief system without desecrating objects that a certain group considers valuable.

tptacek 16y ago
No, it's not a "free speech issue" because you have no right under the Constitution to post whatever you'd like on Rackspace's private property, and the contract you enter into to post anything there specifically enjoins you from posting "harassing" or "hate" speech. Sorry to be pedantic, but people have weird ideas about what the 1st Amendment actually means. "Congress shall make no law" does not mean "Rackspace shall make no rule".
- rbanffy 16y ago
  In other words, you have no free speech on the internet because all the routers, wires, servers, links, modems are the property of their owners and they are free to censor whatever you post as long as they have sufficiently ambiguous clauses on their contracts that may or may not involve you as a part. How far can you bend your constitution before it breaks?
  - tptacek 16y ago
    I demand the immediate use of your HN account to make fun of your understanding how how our Constitution works. Free speech.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      You have your own HN account and I will do nothing to prevent you from poking fun of whatever you want.
  - ax0n 16y ago
    You aren't contractually bound when you use bizarre routers and wires, but your ISP probably holds you to a similar agreement. Also, you can do whatever you want until you get shut down, but a court of law will see it from the contract side. You can feel free to say whatever you want using your own resources, but if you're using someone else's and they don't like what you're doing, then tough shit.
  - NateLawson 16y ago
    You have a good point that a private monopoly can ultimately limit public rights like free speech. If there's no alternative provider that is willing to host hate speech, you can't broadcast it in that form. I can think of three ways to provide for that: 1. Public servers, possibly sponsored by the govt 2. Regulation of Internet access run by private companies 3. Waiting for private competition to create such a space The first one worked well in the early days of the Internet. There were lots of rules against commercial use of publicly-funded computers but little content regulation. Despite what some may think about the govt, it has lost most times it has attempted to limit free speech. Regulation sort of works for railroads and telecom lines. Bell gets a monopoly on wiring but they have to provide access to disabled people, can't do discriminatory pricing, etc. The last one is least likely to succeed. I don't know of any private US company that advertises themselves as "no takedown unless required by court order". It seems there is little profit advantage in marginalized speech compared to the cost of defending against attacks on it. While it's good to see Ipredator and BayImg providing services with this kind of guarantee, the fact that such an effort only seems possible in Sweden should give us pause.
    - devicenull 16y ago
      https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/ https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/ is one I can think of.
  - TWAndrews 16y ago
    Well, yes. One of the great things about the internet is that its regulation, as compared to other industries is relatively light. The flip side of that is that the government has little or no legal basis to ensure that people have a platform from which to speak.
- greenlblue 16y ago
  As good citizens of a country Rackspace personnel also abide by certain rules and one of those is abiding by the laws of the land. The US constitution is pretty explicit about limiting expression and free speech so I can see how it could be argued that this is a free speech issue but that was not the point I was making.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    "When operating a communications service, you must provide equal access to all views" is not one of the laws of the land. It isn't even a law that governs network television stations, and they run on spectrum borrowed from the people.
    - strlen 16y ago
      To be pedantic, according to Supreme Court, states can pass laws that extend the freedom of speech onto private property; some states e.g., California do so, but they target de-facto public spaces such as shopping centres, not servers in a rack: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Ro...
  - strlen 16y ago
    > As good citizens of a country Rackspace personnel also abide by certain rules and one of those is abiding by the laws of the land. The law of the land very explicitly says "Congress shall make no law restricting..." not "Rackspace shall shut down no website".
    - greenlblue 16y ago
      This is why people make a distinction between the spirit and the letter of the law. The point is that congress represents the people and if every private citizen starts censoring everything on their property well then technically congress is not limiting or restricting anything but you are left with a society that is devoid of any free speech.
- Andrew_Quentin 16y ago
  Supposing it was New York Time, sure something quite unimaginable, but supposing this web host decides to terminate their contract and no other host in the country would provide them with a hosting service, would that be an infringement of freedom of speech? Perhaps if we view it from the perspective of the black letter of the law, that is the constitution, the highest law of that country, it might not be an infringement. However freedom of speech goes beyond the constitution, it is a principle ingrained in our society and culture. To address your differences between private and public, a newspaper of course has no obligation to give him space in their platform, nor the television, but the internet is different. The former two are selective, the internet is free for all. If private bodies are able to go around policing the kind of content that is to be found on the net, the difference between them and the government is a mere technicality.
rbanffy 16y ago
So, free speech is only allowed for adequately articulate forms of expression, as judged by Rackspace management. No. This is a free speech issue. Those who feel offended are also free to burn bibles and desecrate whatever they feel proper. As much as we disagree with the book burning festival (it is a stupid thing to do and there are much more articulate ways to express disagreement with Islam), I find freedom of speech is a much more important issue than the sensitivities of religious groups.
- mx12 16y ago
  I would disagree. They signed the contract with rackspace that said they would abide by their polices and if they violated them, they would shut down the site. Nothing is stopping the church from hosting their own website.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    Can you sign off a right your constitution gives you?
    - tptacek 16y ago
      That's a nonsense question, because the Constitution doesn't give you the right to use Rackspace's computers in the first place. Rackspace owns them, and has the understandable perception that it's their choice how they get used, not 'rbanffy's.
      - bluesnowmonkey 16y ago
        Counter-example: You own a bookstore located in a mall -- leased space. The mall's managing company says you are no longer allowed to sell Bibles. Now I'll apply your logic. "The Constitution doesn't give you the right to use that mall space in the first place. The mall owns it, and has the understandable perception that it's their choice how it gets used, not yours." Hopefully you can see that something has gone wrong, regardless of legal compliance. Freedom is neither bestowed by a piece of paper nor by men with guns or gavels. It is a cultural trait manifest in our actions. We're not free unless we live like free people. Would you call yourself a musician if you had no instrument to play? How can you claim to have free speech, if your medium of communication is removed whenever you try to say something unpopular?

haseman 16y ago

While I like this in theory (because burning the Koran en mass is a stupid idea) I'm troubled by it in practice. Does this mean that if I espouse on an idea that Rackspace doesn't like they'll pull my service? Obviously this has nothing to do with the 1st amendment... Rackspace may terminate my use of their property by grounds in the contract I've signed with them. I'm not sure, however, I like the idea of a hosting company policing the ideas that are posted on their servers.

TWAndrews 16y ago
It sounds like it, assuming the way your idea is espoused violates TOS that you agreed to.
- haseman 16y ago
  Fair point, I guess if a movement to burn the Koran "...contains harassing content or hate speech" I have to wonder what other ideas and writings, in Rackspace's considered opinion, might violate that clause in their TOS? As this isn't a legal or constitutional issue, one presumes they aren't using the legal tests for hate speech/hate crimes. Is this a 'I'll know it when i see it' sorta test?
pigbucket 16y ago
It sounds kind of scary when you put it like that, but generally I've no principled objection to a server policing its hosted content for contract compliance as long as it's not the only hosting game in town. If I'm looking for a server, I get to choose whether I trust or want Rackspace. If I'm looking to provide a service, I get to choose whether I want to provide it to crazy dangerous guy. If the guy doesn't think he broke the contract (I don't know what he actually had on the site) let him complain. Otherwise, he can a) find another server that doesn't care about how nuts he is, b) set up his own server, c) exercise his free hate speech from his personal pulpit, or d) join the presumably already established subreddit for Bookburners against Censorship.
photon_off 16y ago
If Rackspace doesn't like your idea, and takes your idea down, you no longer pay Rackspace. Instead, you'll go and pay one of their competitors to host your message. Rackspace may like policing, but they probably would enjoy spending your money more. If all hosting companies decide that "Quran book-burning messages will not be hosted", then you have the freedom to start your own niche business that services these needs. Money: It makes the world go 'round.

TWAndrews 16y ago

People who think this is a free speech issue wrt Rackspace are confused about how the first amendment works. The right to free speech, is not the right to a platform from which to speak. This was the law-of-the land before the internet even existed. Back before Craigslist killed classified, news papers absolutely had terms which specified which content they would or wouldn't run.

jgranby 16y ago
The "constitutional" aspect (if there is one) isn't the issue, though. The issue is whether I, you, or anyone else, wants a web host that takes down web sites it disapproves of. A web host can take down websites for misusing apostrophes, if it is entitled to by contract (if there's a broadly drafted term in the contract, this might even be possible in the real world, not just hypothetically). But would you want to do business with them?

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

gwright 16y ago

I'm usually impressed by the discussion on Hacker News but the amount of ignorance about the nature of the 1st Amendment and the difference between government and private actions in this discussion is disheartening. The US 1st Amendment is a restriction on government actions not a restriction on private actions or private contracts. There may be other legal reasons why private actions might be controlled or regulated but please don't point to the 1st Amendment in order to justify that control. Finally, where do people get the idea that the concept of 'free speech' includes the notion that other people, companies, or the government are required to support and assist you in communicating your message? The freedom to 'speak' without government coercion is not a guarantee that your speech won't be met with ridicule, criticism, rejection, or counterargument and appeals to your 'free speech' rights being violated when that happens is absurd.

boltofblue 16y ago

I understand why .... except..... there are about a billion images, jokes, articles, sites degrading Jesus Christ and advocating destroying Christianity