GoDaddy tells the Daily Stormer to move their domain for TOS violation
twitter.com
twitter.com
For anyone looking for a host, you might consider NearlyFreeSpeech.NET [0]. Their Terms and Conditions of Service ("TACOS") [1] are pretty basic and straightforward.
There is probably an interesting discussion about US TLD's here, though, and property rights inherent to them. On any other TLD, the domain would have probably been seized long ago. But, given the climate, it's clear that this discussion is not going to happen.
It's a US-based TLD, the authority being Verisign. The point is that GoDaddy can tell them to take it elsewhere, but as far as the registry is concerned it's not going to be seized and it's not going to be revoked. Not unless you have a court order. And, lacking any real criminality, there's really shaky first amendment/jurisdiction issues. Not even getting into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
However, it is very dangerous for government to suppress speech, especially if it's speech that the majority of people find distasteful. Let the court of public opinion try those who speech hateful speech, but not the court of law. Certainly, some speech is unlawful, namely incitement to criminal actions, specific threats, and copyright infringement.
Of all terrorist organizations, Nazis should not have any platform to organize at all. They've demonstrated what their goals are, and my family has suffered greatly because of them.
Everyone does.
I am no fan of GoDaddy at all, but unless they're outright lying about their TOS, they are not overstepping any boundaries. Having a view does not grant you a right to a platform.
I see lots of anger/disgust towards Cloudflare on the twitters too. In the past, they've refused to do any censoring. Will this change their minds?
What, they did other things in the past, so this thing they did is also wrong? Weird logic.
(Former GoDaddy employee)
Of course not, but in the not-so-distant past, there were widespread calls to boycott GoDaddy (as I'm sure you're aware).
(Former GoDaddy customer)
This is a private business who reserves the right not to serve anyone.
A hypothetical christian registrar might refuse to do business with an abortion clinic. Many refuse to do business with ISIS.
You're allowed to say whatever you want, but you don't have a right to do it on my privately-held platform.
Did you mean to refer to some law, or maybe a constitutional amendment?
I respect your legal and moral property rights, but I might think someone is a bad person for censoring speech within their own house (for example, a Christian household in which a curious skeptic teen is denied access to secular literature).
You and I can disagree with the importance or applicability of any ethical principle, it doesn't negate the nature of the principle. Recognizing an ethical principle as such (don't harm animals) doesn't require we adhere to all of it's possible consequences (eating vegan, maybe).
It certainly has a lot to do with that.
And it is important to oppose censorship no matter who is doing it.
Sites don't want to be responsible for content uploaded by users because of the manpower involved. Net neutrality has nothing to do with this, at all.
Gab is an Austin, Texas-based[1] social networking service that allows its users, called "Gabbers," to read and write short messages of up to 300 characters called "gabs". The site also offers limited multimedia functionality. Gab describes its mission as "to put people and free speech first" by limiting censorship to filtering options made available to Gabbers.[5]
It's possible that gab's early adopters include people who value free speech as a principle.