Google cancels domain registration for Daily Stormer

The entirety of the internet is not composed of private entities. There are plenty of public entities that comprise parts of the internet. (And, in the US, those public entities are restricted in viewpoint discrimination when they create public fora.)

Now, it's true that private users in the US generally must deal with private vendors for internet services, and most of those services (including, e.g., DNS services) are neither public nor regulated-utility services, which does mean that lots of things one might want to do on the internet are subject to viewpoint discrimination by other private parties whose collaboration would be necessary for one to complete one’s intent.

> Should we simply stop expecting anything resembling free speech on the internet?

Free speech involves, fundamentally, the challenge of convincing others that your speech should be relayed. The internet is no different in that regard.

Selective outrage is curious.

I don't think that was ever the expectation. The internet is a lot larger than the USA. Different countries, different laws.

If I violate the terms of my lease I can be evicted. If you violate your registrar's terms of service your website can be shut down. This is not a new concept, not is it somehow special because it's "on the internet".

Because a private company declining to participate in the hosting of somebody's speech is a hell of a distance from the government mandating blocking said speech? How is this even a serious question?

Random House probably isn't interested in publishing a neo-nazi racial superiority manifesto, either. That's neither a free speech issue nor "tantamount to Chinese censorship".

Refusing to actively collaborate in spreading someone else's viewpoint isn't gluing their mouth shut.

Now, if you want to argue that domain registration should be a public utility and not a private interaction where the service providers freedom of speech and association is protected, that's perhaps a reasonable argument. But that's not the status quo.

Perhaps if DNS service was regulated as a utility, or if Google was an arm of a state or federal government, there might be something to your argument.

Not to mention that the Internet is a global network with 200+ speech laws.

> If private companies have the abilities to squelch speech from the public internet, that is a very bad thing.

the whole point of the net neutrality folks is ensuring that ISPs can't keep them from accessing whatever sites they want, isn't it?

if it is in some sense OK for google to refuse these domain registrations, is it also OK for google (and then comcast, etc etc) to refuse to carry the packets for these sites?

Nobody is doing that.

Nobody is mandated to give you a medium for your speech. Go on the corner and scream all you want.

no?

okay I'll keep popping up every once in a while to ask.

That it happened to be the ideology used to horrific ends in the industrialized world last century is much more a product of its moment in history than due to anything unique about the ideology itself.

The poisonous seed isn't the problem - rather, the ground fertile to it must be tended so that it will reject such things taking root.

I have two rather distinct objections to this line of thinking. One is that this isn't especially true. To name one semi-controlled experiment: Germany has laws against using Nazi symbols, denying the Holocaust, and so forth, and yet the crypto-neo-Nazi NPD pulls down hundreds of thousands of votes every election--not enough to win anything aside from one European Parliament seat, but a significant number anyway. Meanwhile, the US has no laws against neo-Nazi expression and also doesn't seem to have very many more neo-Nazis per capita--even in Charlottesville, the neo-Nazis numbered in the high dozens to low hundreds and were vastly outnumbered by counterprotesters.

A more philosophical objection is that you don't want to go into the business of deciding what ideas are too dangerous to express, because there's a greater risk that any institution with the power to make and enforce that judgment call will abuse that power. This is also a lesson that Europe learned the hard way, but seems to have forgotten.

Censorship cannot triumph over evil, because it is evil in itself. The only reasonable counter is constant vigilance and tireless opposition. Furtive, deceitful whispers in the shadows call for floodlights and truth. Open demonstrations call for larger counter-demonstrations. The effective counter to objectionable speech is not censorship, but speaking the objection.

Allowing some forms speech has an incredibly chilling effect on other forms of speech, or on the safety of people.

Even America does not have absolute free speech (Although its further on this spectrum then all other Western democracies.) See - fighting words, direct incitements to domestic violence (Indirect domestic ones of the wink wink nudge nudge ones are fine, as are direct ones that incite violence against foreign persons or nations.)

Reacting to the Nazis with violence was tried in Germany. And it backfired very badly.

We are in the midst of a cultural civil war. The funny thing is that the more you suppress their ability to protest and their speech, the more converts you're making.

Maybe we should start by asking WHY these groups are getting more popular, why they are so enraged and angry and suddenly are out front airing their frustrations. And saying this is all about Trump is simply masking something that has clearly been brewing for a long time prior to this.

It wasn't always like this. The best example is the Roman Empire in the time of Augustus, with its Pax Romana and everything related to it, which wasn't seen as a bad thing by lots of writers during the centuries that followed it. The second example that comes to mind is the Investiture Controversy from the early Middle Ages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investiture_Controversy), which saw the Papacy ideologically battling it out against the Holy Roman Empire, and the Holy Roman Empire was definitely not seen as oppressive or anything the like.

On a more generic note, us Christian Orthodox use the phrase "The Empire from the Skies" (my not so good translation, here's the wiki article on it in Romanian which literally translates as "God's Empire" : https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Emp%C4%83r%C4%83%C8%9Bia_...), and, again, the term "empire" is not seen as oppressive or anything similar, quite the contrary.

It takes a special kind of warp to see either of those as spewing hate, whereas it is pretty easy to why people in general believe Nazis spew hate.

Actually, you can, that's why there are free speech exceptions in US law and protected classes? Hate speech and hate crimes are a real thing.

Also "ANTIFA" (it's "Antifa" lol) and BLM aren't monolithic groups - one is an ideology dedicated to fighting fascism and the other is a social justice movement consisting of many decentralized local community orgs. Neither of these are comparable to Nazis literally shouting to gas kikes in the streets and running over peaceful protesters and if you think they are, you might want to check yourself.

[Full Excerpt] The damage Holmes inflicted — the malleable and unprincipled standard of censorship he drafted — was not thoroughly rebuffed until a half-century later. Brandenburg v. Ohio states the modern standard:

These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. . . . A statute which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control.

Note that Brandenburg does suggest, explicitly, that some speech is unprotected by the First Amendment. But people seeking a generic pro-censorship quote go to Holmes, not Brandenburg, and well they should — Schenck supports a loose and unprincipled interpretation of what the "fire in a theater" might be. [Edit: as a commenter points out, note that to be fair to Chayes she does mention Brandenburg even though she opens with Schenck.]

Registrant represents and warrants that:...registering or directly or indirectly using the Registered Name will not violate any applicable laws or regulations, legal rights of others, or Google’s rules or policies including:

It would seem to include rules and policies not listed in the terms.

> To display or advertise pornographic, X-rated, sexually explicit, or otherwise tasteless materials, images, products or services (including, but not limited to: massage, dating, escort or prostitution services);

GoDaddy probably (it is at their discretion) finds the Daily Stormer to be tasteless.

Incorrect; we've already established in law a small set of narrow protected bases of discrimination in public accommodation. Outside of those categories (or in business relationship that are not within the scope of public accommodation, regardless of basid) a business absolutely can refuse service to customers it finds objectionable.

Discrimination based on advocacy of race-based violence does not, it should be noted, fall into any of those protected categories.

Muslim employee in a supermarket refuses to handle bacon = okay

Christian employee in a supermarket refuses bake a cake for a homosexual = not okay

Free speech and anti-discrimination when it suits you, and the opposite when it suits you. The doublethink is strong.

(I'm not aware of anything restricting me from setting up a server that answers DNS queries with quotes from Dune, it's just that, because I'm not following the convention, pretty much everyone would just ignore it)

There is a challenge in isolating extremists while not isolating (and, indeed, productively engaging) the communities from which members are radicalized, and quite often brute-force efforts to isolate extremists (especially ones keying on race, nationality, and religion) end up isolating the feeder communities with the extremists, which is about the worst possible outcome.

These Nazis got kicked off one registrar and decided to make it Google's problem.

Companies have every right to choose who they do business with.

There are plenty of registrars out there that have no issues with hate speech. This is just a PR exercise for the Nazis.

>no one can make a unanimous conclusion for what hate speech is

Would it be a "unanimous" conclusion if it were a conclusion drawn by a singular person or entity?

>It now means using gender pronouns to refer to people

Do you have an example of this being identified as hate speech?

Actually, you can deny anyone except protected categories.

> Can a doctor deny to treat them if they end up in his office for serious injuries?

Yes, the doctor chooses not to treat patients with the illness or injury you suffer from.

> What if all registrars deny them, is it morally right to effectively erase them from the internet for simply expressing their thoughts?

Nobody is being erased from the internet. Also, they can open their own registrar system.

So no, there's no obligation for Google, or any other registrar, to host their information.