8 ms·

Don't want your domain seized by the US? then don't use a TLD owned by the US to engage in anti-US activities. Have we already forgotten Iran and their calls fo

Don't want your domain seized by the US? then don't use a TLD owned by the US to engage in anti-US activities. Have we already forgotten Iran and their calls for death to America? Would you expect any country to allow usage of their services to advocate for their downfall? Would you expect McDonalds to allow you to have an anti-McDonalds protest inside one of their restaurants?

fit2rule 6y ago
>Iran and their calls for death to America? Citation required. (EDIT: to be clear, it seems that we require a citation to the official Iranian policy, not some clear agitprop around a popular slogan ...)
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  It's an extremely common slogan in Iran(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America). I should note that Iranian officials generally insist that it's not meant literally, although I'm not taking a position on whether or not that's true.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    Oh, its a slogan .. I thought we were talking about official government policy. I wonder if McCain meant his death chant literally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7s5pT3Rris https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7s5pT3Rris Its probably a good thing he didn't get a chance to set official US policy on Iran. EDIT: /s
    - dmurray 6y ago
      McCain absolutely meant the US should drop bombs on Iran and cause the death of some Iranian people. That's not even a controversial position in the US, probably 75%+ of American voters would support that if proposed by the right person. And he was a United States senator for 30 years, including a Chair of the Armed Services Committee. How much more involved in setting America's international policy could one be?
      - fit2rule 6y ago
        I think far, far fewer Americans support its illegal wars than you claim .. they're just silenced by the minority who stand to profit from it and who currently control the war megaphone.
- HenryKissinger 6y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America
- Ancapistani 6y ago
  Uh - is this sufficient? > Death to America (Persian: مرگ بر آمریکا‎ Marg bar Āmrikā) is an anti-American political slogan and chant which has been in use in Iran since the inception of the Iranian Revolution in 1979. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    No, not really sufficient. Official Government Policy > populist slogans.
    - Ancapistani 6y ago
      The very next line: > Ayatollah Khomeini, the first leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, popularized the term.
      - fit2rule 6y ago
        EDIT: lets be clear, what the Ayatollah himself thinks about this slogan: “It goes without saying that the slogan does not mean death to the American nation; this slogan means death to the US’s policies, death to arrogance,” he said. Was it made official government policy? If so, what's the policy - I'd truly like to read it. Because plenty of American politicians have said extremely hateful, despicable things about Iran too - is this cause for their censorship? If we are to measure things by populist slogans, America should have been glass parking lot'ed by the countries it has slandered and heaped hatred on, decades ago. I'm pretty sure this is a moral conundrum that American's are ill-equipped to respond to... Or is it the same old "might makes right" argument that keeps being proffered in these stupid agitprop articles? So this situation provides quite clear evidence of the lengths that very real war-mongers will go to in order to provide justification for their heinous acts. Not only is censorship occurring, but downright lies too. EDIT2: No, war-mongers. YOU give it a rest.
        Ancapistani 6y ago
        The government of Iran includes it in murals in Teheran. An Iran-sponsored rebel group include the phrase in their flag. > Tehran Radio, monitored in Nicosia on Tuesday, dubbed Nov. 4 ″Death to America Day.″ https://apnews.com/article/349374a3c1c5a4ec6c3fbefd1ac3f2ae https://apnews.com/article/349374a3c1c5a4ec6c3fbefd1ac3f2ae How could it be any more official?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
ahelwer 6y ago
.com and .net hardly seem as though they should be subject to US ownership & authority. .us sure, knock yourself out. It would still be weird even if it were the .us TLD though. State censorship is state censorship.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  .com is managed by VeriSign, a US company. For better or worse, that is the world we live in. But to be honest, with all the new TLDs, there's no longer anything really special about the .com/net/org domains anymore.
- DeonPenny 6y ago
  .com and .net have always been all but .us. Since .us didn't exist when the web was created
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    Tim's toy hypermedia system (the "World Wide Web") is from 1990, but the US top level domain was created in 1985 and is one of the first ccTLDs.
jameslk 6y ago
> Don't want your domain seized by the US? then don't use a TLD owned by the US to engage in anti-US activities. ICANN is based in the US so they can theoretically turn off any domain they want. Also are you suggesting it's OK for the US to shutdown any website engaging in whatever the US government defines as "anti-US activities?" > Have we already forgotten Iran and their calls for death to America? I'd love to see the proof you have that these websites were bannering "death to America" across their websites. Unless you have some special knowledge about the situation I don't, I think we can safely say we don't know if any of the accusations the US is making about these websites are even true.
- jeremyjh 6y ago
  > ICANN is based in the US so they can turn off any website they want. Please tell us more about this. Which ir and ru domains have been seized by the US lately?
  - vmception 6y ago
    They can and exercise a lot of discretion in not doing so. It has nothing to do with the legal authority, which they can also rationalize, feel free to come to the US and appeal in court. The internet being administered by US corporations makes them easily compellable and any property they steward can be seized despite being for the benefit of foreign citizens and non-residents.
  - jameslk 6y ago
    Which law prevents them from doing it?
- jariel 6y ago
  "I'd love to see the proof you have that these websites were bannering "death to America" across their websites." ??? 'Death to America' is a common refrain used by officials of the Iranian Revolution. Literally here is the Ayatollah's justification for it [1], as if a dark comedy come to life. That anyone would ask for 'evidence', heyzeus. Also, here's Amnesty International's assessment on the regimes arbitrary murder of 300 dissidents during a minor uprising recently. [2] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/03/ayatollah-khamenei-iran-death-to-america https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/03/ayatollah-kham... [2] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/05/iran-details-released-of-304-deaths-during-protests-six-months-after-security-forces-killing-spree/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/05/iran-details-...
mindslight 6y ago
"Death to America" is US Constitutionally protected speech, regardless of who is saying it. Your McDonalds example is fallacious, as McDonalds is not bound by the first amendment. Someone protesting on the sidewalk outside of McDonalds certainly has that right, even if McDonalds has bought the local government. Freedom of speech is not simply being able to wear a Pepsi shirt in downtown Atlanta, but about viewpoints that necessarily make us uncomfortable. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". That so many are willing to discard our hard-earned freedoms for the lure of simplistic neo-fascism [0] is harrowing. Our society has been whipped into a stupor by the specter of foreign strawmen, while the real threats to the US are the domestic powers doing the whipping. If you can't see how this action is utterly anti-American, you are contributing to our destruction. [0] One telltale indicator of neo-fascism is the analogizing of state activity to business activity.
albntomat0 6y ago
I think you're overstating the reasoning behind the takedown, as cited in the original post. The issue was that the IRGC was pretending to be genuine new outlets, not the actual information they posted.

fit2rule 6y ago

>Iran and their calls for death to America? Citation required. (EDIT: to be clear, it seems that we require a citation to the official Iranian policy, not some clear agitprop around a popular slogan ...)

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
It's an extremely common slogan in Iran(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America). I should note that Iranian officials generally insist that it's not meant literally, although I'm not taking a position on whether or not that's true.
- fit2rule 6y ago
  Oh, its a slogan .. I thought we were talking about official government policy. I wonder if McCain meant his death chant literally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7s5pT3Rris https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7s5pT3Rris Its probably a good thing he didn't get a chance to set official US policy on Iran. EDIT: /s
  - dmurray 6y ago
    McCain absolutely meant the US should drop bombs on Iran and cause the death of some Iranian people. That's not even a controversial position in the US, probably 75%+ of American voters would support that if proposed by the right person. And he was a United States senator for 30 years, including a Chair of the Armed Services Committee. How much more involved in setting America's international policy could one be?
    - fit2rule 6y ago
      I think far, far fewer Americans support its illegal wars than you claim .. they're just silenced by the minority who stand to profit from it and who currently control the war megaphone.
HenryKissinger 6y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America
Ancapistani 6y ago
Uh - is this sufficient? > Death to America (Persian: مرگ بر آمریکا‎ Marg bar Āmrikā) is an anti-American political slogan and chant which has been in use in Iran since the inception of the Iranian Revolution in 1979. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America
- fit2rule 6y ago
  No, not really sufficient. Official Government Policy > populist slogans.
  - Ancapistani 6y ago
    The very next line: > Ayatollah Khomeini, the first leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, popularized the term.
    - fit2rule 6y ago
      EDIT: lets be clear, what the Ayatollah himself thinks about this slogan: “It goes without saying that the slogan does not mean death to the American nation; this slogan means death to the US’s policies, death to arrogance,” he said. Was it made official government policy? If so, what's the policy - I'd truly like to read it. Because plenty of American politicians have said extremely hateful, despicable things about Iran too - is this cause for their censorship? If we are to measure things by populist slogans, America should have been glass parking lot'ed by the countries it has slandered and heaped hatred on, decades ago. I'm pretty sure this is a moral conundrum that American's are ill-equipped to respond to... Or is it the same old "might makes right" argument that keeps being proffered in these stupid agitprop articles? So this situation provides quite clear evidence of the lengths that very real war-mongers will go to in order to provide justification for their heinous acts. Not only is censorship occurring, but downright lies too. EDIT2: No, war-mongers. YOU give it a rest.
      - Ancapistani 6y ago
        The government of Iran includes it in murals in Teheran. An Iran-sponsored rebel group include the phrase in their flag. > Tehran Radio, monitored in Nicosia on Tuesday, dubbed Nov. 4 ″Death to America Day.″ https://apnews.com/article/349374a3c1c5a4ec6c3fbefd1ac3f2ae https://apnews.com/article/349374a3c1c5a4ec6c3fbefd1ac3f2ae How could it be any more official?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

ahelwer 6y ago

.com and .net hardly seem as though they should be subject to US ownership & authority. .us sure, knock yourself out. It would still be weird even if it were the .us TLD though. State censorship is state censorship.

djsumdog 6y ago
.com is managed by VeriSign, a US company. For better or worse, that is the world we live in. But to be honest, with all the new TLDs, there's no longer anything really special about the .com/net/org domains anymore.
DeonPenny 6y ago
.com and .net have always been all but .us. Since .us didn't exist when the web was created
- tialaramex 6y ago
  Tim's toy hypermedia system (the "World Wide Web") is from 1990, but the US top level domain was created in 1985 and is one of the first ccTLDs.

jameslk 6y ago

> Don't want your domain seized by the US? then don't use a TLD owned by the US to engage in anti-US activities. ICANN is based in the US so they can theoretically turn off any domain they want. Also are you suggesting it's OK for the US to shutdown any website engaging in whatever the US government defines as "anti-US activities?" > Have we already forgotten Iran and their calls for death to America? I'd love to see the proof you have that these websites were bannering "death to America" across their websites. Unless you have some special knowledge about the situation I don't, I think we can safely say we don't know if any of the accusations the US is making about these websites are even true.

jeremyjh 6y ago
> ICANN is based in the US so they can turn off any website they want. Please tell us more about this. Which ir and ru domains have been seized by the US lately?
- vmception 6y ago
  They can and exercise a lot of discretion in not doing so. It has nothing to do with the legal authority, which they can also rationalize, feel free to come to the US and appeal in court. The internet being administered by US corporations makes them easily compellable and any property they steward can be seized despite being for the benefit of foreign citizens and non-residents.
- jameslk 6y ago
  Which law prevents them from doing it?
jariel 6y ago
"I'd love to see the proof you have that these websites were bannering "death to America" across their websites." ??? 'Death to America' is a common refrain used by officials of the Iranian Revolution. Literally here is the Ayatollah's justification for it [1], as if a dark comedy come to life. That anyone would ask for 'evidence', heyzeus. Also, here's Amnesty International's assessment on the regimes arbitrary murder of 300 dissidents during a minor uprising recently. [2] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/03/ayatollah-khamenei-iran-death-to-america https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/03/ayatollah-kham... [2] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/05/iran-details-released-of-304-deaths-during-protests-six-months-after-security-forces-killing-spree/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/05/iran-details-...

mindslight 6y ago

"Death to America" is US Constitutionally protected speech, regardless of who is saying it. Your McDonalds example is fallacious, as McDonalds is not bound by the first amendment. Someone protesting on the sidewalk outside of McDonalds certainly has that right, even if McDonalds has bought the local government. Freedom of speech is not simply being able to wear a Pepsi shirt in downtown Atlanta, but about viewpoints that necessarily make us uncomfortable. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". That so many are willing to discard our hard-earned freedoms for the lure of simplistic neo-fascism [0] is harrowing. Our society has been whipped into a stupor by the specter of foreign strawmen, while the real threats to the US are the domestic powers doing the whipping. If you can't see how this action is utterly anti-American, you are contributing to our destruction. [0] One telltale indicator of neo-fascism is the analogizing of state activity to business activity.

albntomat0 6y ago

I think you're overstating the reasoning behind the takedown, as cited in the original post. The issue was that the IRGC was pretending to be genuine new outlets, not the actual information they posted.