5 ms·

imo the pastor is clearly wrong in what he is doing and he is unnecessarily insulting and provoking millions of people. That said, I'm not very comfortable wit

• Vivtek 16y ago
  Yeah, I kind of feel this way, too. I loathe Jones and all he stands for, but ... pulling a site goes against my own grain. I'm not too happy with Rackspace on this one.
  • Marticus 16y ago
    It's a ToS agreement for a reason. "You may not publish, transmit or store on or via Rackspace's network and equipment any content or links to any content that Rackspace reasonably believes: is excessively violent, incites violence, threatens violence, or contains harassing content or hate speech"
    • Vivtek 16y ago
      I'm not arguing they're [edit] not [/edit, sigh] within their rights. I just don't like the situation, and I think their action will inflame the loony right even more.
      • jacquesm 16y ago
        > and I think their action will inflame the loony right even more. Who cares? If you let yourself be guided by whether or not the fringe dwellers will get 'inflamed' you've become part of the problem. Rackspace made the right decision in this case, good for them. I wished the hosting provider of the cos would be just as pro-active.
    • wallfly 16y ago
      It's pretty clear that this church's site was inciting or had the potential to incite violence. I think the tricky issue here is "hate speech". There are varying standards, and what metric will/do Rackspace and other hosting providers adhere to? For example, what if a Rackspace-hosted site contained all or portions of the text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Certainly the Catechism does not promote or incite physical violence. However, it contains unambiguous language regarding the immorality of homosexual acts: http://bit.ly/ccc2357 http://bit.ly/ccc2357 I'm not attempting to "stir the pot" and initiate an argument over this point in the teaching of the Catholic Church. But I wonder, could/would Rackspace and other hosting companies take down a site which cited this material or posted it verbatim? If not at present, are we headed toward such a day? In general ... At what point does a strongly stated religious or moral principle which is at complete odds with the beliefs or lifestyle of another person or group constitute hate speech? And who decides that with respect to something like web hosting, as opposed to someone preaching on a street corner out in public? Please, no flames, I think this is a serious topic that deserves sincere and balanced treatment.
      • Marticus 16y ago
        But the thing is that is religious text, and also isn't particularly inflammatory. We know that religions don't usually accept homosexuality. They're not saying to burn a couple hundred. But really if some organisation was to round up a few hundred Bibles, post on their site that they were going to burn them and here's an invitation, bring your family and your friends, we're doing it to show how we don't like Christians, you can bet that the ISP servicing their site would likely go "uh.... yeah not so much" and also pull the plug. If they just said they were having a meeting to talk about how they don't like Muslims, fine. You can do that. But it's a bit more drastic to burn a bunch of their holy texts which is DEFINITELY with the intent of inciting violence or hatred toward a (very LARGE) group of people. Edit: The "very large" bit is not to say that the numbers matter in this case (I'd be just as much against doing that to any other religion or group regardless of size), but only that they are spitting in the eyes of quite a few people and that it's unfortunate.
      • notahacker 16y ago
        In the case of Rackspace, when they receive complaints and start to wonder whether that religious organisations' continued business is really worth dealing with large-scale DDoS etc.
• danilocampos 16y ago
  That's the beauty of life in a free society. Jackass pastor gets to say and do stupid things. Rackspace gets to say "do it on your own box." You get to say, "meh, kind of lame, Rackspace." And life goes on. And all I'm saying is that, under this circumstance, Rackspace gets the same freedom you and the pastor have, and this is as it should be.
  • avar 16y ago
    Very true. But it's also advantageous to a free society if you didn't get harassed just because you host some douche-bags on your network, as long as they aren't spamming or dDoS-ing someone.
  • jacoblyles 16y ago
    I just make a mental note "never use Rackspace for anything". Problem solved.
    • michaelhalligan 16y ago
      I agree with this one, but that's just because they're an overpriced, incompetent hosting company.
• alexqgb 16y ago
  Um, credo, you just said this is "clearly wrong" and "unnecessarily insulting and provoking millions of people". But when Rackspace comes to the same conclusion, they're "making arbitrary decisions". Really?
  • ori_b 16y ago
    His decision is also arbitrary. I would say he doesn't have the right to take action to shut them up either.
• michaelhalligan 16y ago
  You have the right to get on a soap-box and say whatever you want. You just don't have the right to use my business's facilities to do so. All businesses should reserve the right to refuse service, and exercise that when they feel it's warranted.
  • zavulon 16y ago
    Still, everyone is at least entitled to an advanced notice from their host that they're getting shut down, to avoid any downtime. In this case, it seemed like keeping the website offline was Rackspace's goal, not "refusing service", which is very lame.
    • michaelhalligan 16y ago
      Fully agreed. The only reason I would find that type of shut-off acceptable would be if Rackspace were getting DDOS'd to a point that was costing them significant expenses by way of bandwidth, manpower, or downtime credits to other customers. In such a case, shutting them off for causing these damages while violating Terms Of Services would definitely be warranted.