Google says it will ban neo-Nazi site after domain name switch
theverge.com
theverge.com
Banning them is futile (someone on Earth will host them) and makes them more subversive, taboo, and attractive to certain people.
I'm sure that is absolutely what is happening, and they kind of have a point. Google leans liberal, they just got a ton of bad press for firing that guy, and they just blocked Stormwhatever from their DNS servers after GoDaddy just did (who I assume is also liberalish).
Like I said, shortsighted. Not to mention when people start thinking of Google as a monopoly, they don't want a bunch of references to a banstick coming up in public discourse.
If anyone buys into that bullshit it's on them, not Google or Godaddy.
It's like when we invaded Iraq to fight terrorism (or whatever) and ended up creating one of the strongest terror groups (ISIS) history has seen in a while.
Ya gotta have to face palm. I mean this is nothing new. When you kill the crazy leader, you make him a martyr thus strengthening the group. Worked since at least Christianity.
Maybe Google should stay out of politics.
Freedom of speech has to do with freedom from government censorship and prosecution; you can't force random private entities to help spread your speech.
edit: The cake case was due to state laws, though.
> No federal law requires businesses to serve all customers without regard to their sexual orientation, but 21 states have “public accommodations” laws that prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians. - http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-gays-religio...
The government equally could adopt a law prohibiting discrimination based on advocacy of race-based violence in public accommodation as several state governments have for gender preference.
> Yet the government can force private entities to sell a cake to a homosexual couple?
Laws reflect human preferences, which are at some level arbitrary. Apparently, many states think that discrimination against gays is a problem that needs to be addressed, whereas discrimination against violent racists is not.
The law will always seem arbitrary to you as long as you are ignorant of it.
If I register "godaddysucks.com" with Go Daddy can they say sorry you cannot register that?
In China the government which controls the registars for their country would of course ban"wedrovetanksovertheprotestors.co.cn". Does not seem we in the USA should allow that sort of restriction here, no?
All free speech has to be allowed. The internet in the US is a public monopoly like power, etc (despite the current FCC chairs view). As a public monopoly the right of free speech for something like a registrar has to be enforced. This does not mean Facebook cannot enforce a terms of service as you do not need to use Facebook. But banning the public resource of domain registration which allows these dumbasses to put up and host their own site violates the idea of free speech as they require a registrar to exist in order to speak. It does not matter if we do not like what they have to say. After all you need not visit the site.
Banning Nazi speech in Germay has not resulted Germany being free of neo-nazis.
Hitler started slow, prohibiting the trade unionist. Seemed like a great idea at the time.... it's a slippery slope.
Education is the only cure here. Restricting speech only leads to more extreme behavior and opens the path for others to restrict what they do not like.
We already ban some kinds of speech, and I've never heard anyone complain about it. For instance, you can't stand on a street corner and try to recruit people to join ISIS. You can't threaten to hurt or kill someone. You can't show pornography to minors, or show anyone pornography that contains minors.
These are all very popular restrictions on free speech.
> These are all very popular restrictions on free speech.
A person can engage in any of the activities you describe. They will just be dealt with by those elected by the people under law established by the people.
Google, Facebook and many others are deciding what they feel you should see based on their own prejudices, identity politics, agenda-driven deals, control and manipulation of information and/or other factors.
It's a slippery slope indeed with no oversight, no means to defend yourself. A person, a domain... simply gets wiped from existence.
It's like AT&T monitoring phone calls (oh, wait...) and killing your phone service because of something you said in a group chat. Or an ISP monitoring your online activities (oh, wait...) and cutting service because you visited a controversial (but legal) site. Or a building owner tossing you out on the street because your politics don't align with his/hers.
We have laws. We also have agencies whose functions are to deal with those breaking those laws. If a domain is doing something illegal - let the law handle it and not your "well-meaning" Uncle Scrooge and his shotgun.
We also have laws against vigilantes. Are the Googles, Facebooks and others turning into information vigilantes?
No, they are the owners of major digital presses that other people would like to use. But they have the freedom to choose what to use them for.
You can say whatever you want; that is protected by free speech. Google can choose not to provide a venue and assistance to you in publicizing those views; that, too, is free speech.
Your freedom of speech does not entitle you to commandeer the resources of unwilling third parties to deliver your speech. If you want collaborators, you need to convince them.
No it does not, the government is not the entity they are dealing with.
Either the principle is important and you support it or you don't. If you actually believe in freedom of speech you don't get to celebrate censorship by corporate entities because the constitution didn't forbid it.
This all-or-nothing view has never been true, and that's kind of the point. Freedom of speech requires social dialogue and consequence to have value - the ability of private entities to reject what they don't like is what makes the whole thing work.
I believe that Google should feel free, both legally and socially, to act according to their conscience as a company. However, I believe that their conscience, as a massively powerful part of online communication, should be to remain neutral towards any legal communication that takes place on their platform. I think that's a more effective moral stance than the one they are taking.
People cheering Google here, were you happy when Occupy Wall Street was run out of a public park, essentially censoring the movement? I certainly wasn't.
However, Zucotti Park is private, not public.
Do we want to support a world where corporations can freely censor ideas they don't like? Is that a good world to live in?
The text of the first amendment is: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It says nothing about private entities regulating private platforms and that's on purpose - free speech means nothing without the private means to accept or reject it.
I feel that most of this confusion stems from people who live in different countries conflating their free speech laws with our own. In the United States, the government cannot regulate speech on the basis of its content, and this has always been the case. In the United States, private entities are free to regulate speech on private platforms, and this has also been the case since day 1 of the republic. This is nothing new for us Americans, and nothing particularly scary!
In other words, because it isn't constitutionally protected doesn't mean I have to like it, and I certainly won't give them kudos for it. I'm not arguing the legality of it, you are and I'm not sure why. I suspect it's because you support this type of censorship.
Can you even think of one government protected right we've gained in the last 20 years? Don't say pot, because we lost that right in the 1900s. As a citizen it is your duty to be diligent to protect your freedoms, for your self and future generations. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and we're well down it.
My solution was to have a public option registrar.
As long as companies are making individual decisions and ICANN isn't involved, I think it's good that companies are making a moral stand. But when we start creating blacklists we become no better than the Nazis. It's a line we're getting dangerously close to and we don't want to cross it. I see no problem with a company like Google banning neo-Nazi websites. I see a huge problem if all the registrars conspire to create a blacklist or if ICANN starts censoring content.
While I respect Google's rights to host whatever it wants as a private business, I can't help but feel these actions merely serve to prove certain groups right and embolden, or entrench, divisions even further.
This is generally true, but not always; in particular, companies with monopolistic power forfeit some of their autonomy. I'm sure that wouldn't apply in this case, but it might kick in if Google banned this website from its search results, for example.
They are certainly free to lay out their evidence that it is race and not advocacy of violence that motivated the actions, either to make that case in the court of public opinion or one of law (race-based discrimination in public accommodation is generally illegal).
From the publicly available evidence, that explanation doesn't seem the most likely one, though.
But, the appropriateness of such laws and how they interact with First Amendment freedoms is somewhat irrelevant to this case, in the absence of a statute that would be applicable.
This is why namecoin and .bit domains are so great, it's basically registering your domain on the blockchain so it can't be censored.
It's easy for you to say that you're not afraid. I bet you're not a persecuted minority. The torches aren't going to be coming down on you buddy.
And like I said, we ban speech all the time. We have NDAs, we have court orders, we ban fighting words and so on. The idea that the slippery slope is just not happening seems alien to you.
It there is still a huge number of Neo-Nazi's in Germany so banning speech has worked?
Banning speech because you think the torches are coming for you is just a feel good measure. Only education and good people standing up to do the right thing can fix this. Let's get this right - I cannot stand these alt-right morons. They make my stomach turn. In reality however I just feel sorry for them and wish we as society could fix / education / heal whatever stupidity in their upbringing makes them act / think this way. No child is born racist. It is taught. A witch hunt to ban them just makes their persucution and anger complex worse.
'Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.... Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.' –Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community, MLK.
Court orders are temporary based on a on going case, etc. NDAs are a voluntary contract. They also legally do not prevent you from speaking in the case of a legal violation.
I am an absolutist on this issue because it is the only safe way.
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." - Martin Niemoller
He spent 7 years in a Nazi concentration camp.