EFF: Silencing 'The Daily Stormer' Threatens Free Expression

[USAFRet]

Tor's stance is the correct one. If they believe in everyone having open protected speech, then they would be wrong to silence one group, regardless of how sick and twisted they are. As long as that groups actions are legal that is.

And then you get the problem of...
What is legal in one place is not legal in another place.

I do not pretend to know the answer.

 

[louismarschalko5]

IDK if the Daily Stormer wants their URL to be publicized on an open forum. So until I do, I won't.

 

[USAFRet]

IDK if the Daily Stormer wants their URL to be publicized on an open forum. So until I do, I won't.

No, do not do that in here.

 

[everygamer]

I don't see a big deal, let those services drop their site, those are all largely application hosting platforms. The Daily Stormer can go out and just buy bandwidth, setup their own servers and host their site. Most ISP's don't get involved in content, Google, GoDaddy and Cloudflare are not ISP's, they are selling hosting service packages where you can place your content. In a sense, they are selling managed hosting services and their business is hosting content so they can have rules against which content they want to host. A datacenter will likely sell The Daily Stormer rack space, they can put their own servers, load their own software, and host their own content and a data center won't care, because they are not in the content business.

So I understand were the EFF is coming from, but these services dropping The Daily Stormer doesn't stop them from having their site, or their voice, it just makes it more expensive and a little harder to get it out there.

I hate these alt-whatever-side type organizations, nothing is good when it is not in moderation, but we do have to be careful with free speech and protecting it, but I don't see anything wrong with what those companies chose to do, as it won't really stop The Daily Stormer from existing.

Free speech is a double-edged sword, it protects the voice of the small, but also those on the morally wrong side of the road.

I sometimes wonder how many people in these neo-nazi, crazy pants groups had great-grand parents and grand parents that died in WWII fighting to stop the Nazi's, probably rolling over in the graves right now.

 

[everygamer]

Btw, for those that think that Google, being so massive and controlling of what content people can see, I do not believe Google is filtering The Daily Stormer from their search engine. They are not shutting down their voice in that manner. I believe Google is saying that The Daily Stormer can not use their hosting services. Google like Amazon sells virtual servers and web services, this is what they are saying The Daily Stormer is not allowed to use. If the The Daily Stormer self-hosts their content in other means, Google search will likely continue to scan and return results on this. If Google were filtering content, then I think there could be a strong argument made that it could be impacting free-speech as this is at this point in a sense filtering the internet.

Though, even with this, as a private company, Google has every right to do so, but they wouldn't want to because it would likely lead to lawsuits and then possibly changes in legislation that states that search engines cannot filter. The best way to keep the government out of your business is to not en-flame political matters with your platform.

 

[USAFRet]

If Google wishes you gone from the internet, you are gone.

The problem, as I see it, is that this is a kneejerk reaction to public outcry over recent events.

Daily Stormer had their crap..the exact same offensive crap for the exact same audience...on the interwebs last week, last month, last year.
The exact same content.

But all of a sudden....they must be banned.
If their stuff was "illegal" last year (and unfortunately is is not, under US law), why wasn't it removed then?

If it is now against the policies of Google/CloudFlare/GoDaddy...why only now? Why not then?

 

[tearfangf]

I seem to remember a while back, ?DMCA?, that content providers could either curate the content on their platform, and assume responsibility for the content OR they could be a neutral provider to everyone and avoid liability. It seems that by censoring they have now opened themselves up to liability to ISIS, copKillers and all sorts of crazy that is out there on the internet. I haven't heard much talk about that angle, are these companies opening themselves up to liability so that they are now legally obligated to censor more?

 

[chugot9218]

Mainly because of an article that was interpreted as inciting violence, while also calling the woman killed in Charlottesville a "fat sl*t who assuredly had many abortions", sorry if that was loosely quoted I don't feel like reading that vile drivel again, feel free to refresh yourself as you seem to be quite ignorant of the reasonings provided. So that was why they were initially expunged, and when they tried to move onto Google using automated host transfer service they were also removed there.

 

[USAFRet]

Mainly because of an article that was interpreted as inciting violence, while also calling the woman killed in Charlottesville a "fat sl*t who assuredly had many abortions", sorry if that was loosely quoted I don't feel like reading that vile drivel again, feel free to refresh yourself as you seem to be quite ignorant of the reasonings provided. So that was why they were initially expunged, and when they tried to move onto Google using automated host transfer service they were also removed there.

If that is indeed the case, and there was new content that was of that level...then sure, Google, et al may have justification.

(but let's leave off the personal attacks of "ignorant". OK?)

 

[chugot9218]

Fair enough, though in this case I meant it more along the lines of uninformed as opposed to willfully ignorant.

 

[USAFRet]

 

[Daekar3]

I don't understand how this is even a question. This is the entire point of the philosophy behind the first amendment. We must protect all speech, even that which we believe is wrong in every possible way.

 

[RedJaron]

I don't understand how this is even a question. This is the entire point of the philosophy behind the first amendment. We must protect all speech, even that which we believe is wrong in every possible way.

There are two reasons this isn't strictly a 1A thing.

First, some reports say Daily Stormer publicly claimed Cloudflare was a supporter and/or sponsor of Daily Stormer simply because Daily Stormer paid Cloudflare for services. If this did happen, then Cloudflare is more than entitled to terminate the service on likely breach of contract.

Second, the 1A is only in the USA whereas the internet is global. The 1A protections only extend to companies based in the USA.

EFF's argument is that even though the 1A doesn't officially or legally apply to the entire internet and all the companies that live there, the web was developed on the principle of it and the internet companies should voluntarily accept it.

 

[Rob1C]

The reason it is wrong to say (for example) every "Tall person" is rich and every "Short person" is poor is because it is not true, the opposite is not true either; whether one or the other is a better "Apple picker" is a different question.

That is one of the slippery slopes people are pushed down when one person stands on top.

Some countries use sophisticated electronic equipment to monitor conversations in private and on the Internet, sometimes the consequences for a misspeak can be severe.

If all "bad" were eliminated in a few hundred years no one would remember and the 'unwanted idea' could be snuck in, in a new more palatable form.

It's important to know of the beliefs of one group or the other so we can decide if their thinking has any value to Society and to remind us of what is unwanted. Should these groups meet in secret and have a recognition code or act to enter the enclave.

A lot of various groups are wrong on fact, morality, or law but where there actions are not our road to doom to burn them as witches leads us to the same road us 'moralists' say we do not walk.

From the teachings of Star Trek: Be careful how you alter the past. [Altering the present affects the past tomorrow].

To know of stupidity and what is wrong gives you the ability to know right from wrong.

Do you not speak of Burglars and thus everyone in your town leaves their door unlocked?

 

[alextheblue]

You cannot deny service to a gay person for the same reason you cannot deny it to a black person or a woman, it is an inherent part of the person.

You're saying it's OK to deny service to a-hole neo-Nazis because their ideology is not an inherent part of them. Seems legit. By that logic, it would be OK to deny service to a Muslim or a Christian person specifically for their beliefs (which you disagree with), because their ideology is not an inherent part of them. Basically it's all cool, because they weren't born with that ideology in their chromosomes.

I also see this sort of thinking reflected in leftist preference for physical diversity over intellectual diversity. I'm so inspired.

 

[everygamer]

Keep in mind that 1A says you have the right to free speech. It does not say that a private company has to support your free speech. Google can deny your ability to host your website on their services (doubt they are blocking web search), you can host your site somewhere else and your 1A rights are still valid. You can walk down the street and spout hate, and it is protected.

The problem is that people don't seem to understand what "speech" is in the legal sense, nor how 1A interacts with private organizations.

Example:
You can walk down a public street saying "I hate how Trump is running this government, and I don't agree that gay's should be able to marry" or any other number of things that will likely piss someone off. That's free speech, you are not going to be arrested for saying what you have on your mind. If you then decide to walk into a restaurant, stand on a chair and say the same things, that restaurant can kick you out. They are not breaking your 1A rights. You can walk out the door, and continuing saying what you want, but that private company has a right to decide that you need to do it somewhere else since it is private property. This is basically the same as what theses companies did with the web sites. They just told them to take their free speech somewhere else to host it, this is in their rights.

Keep in mind, Google is not restricting how that site shows up in their search engine, just that they can not use Google Services to host the website itself.

 

[g-unit1111]

I don't understand how this is even a question. This is the entire point of the philosophy behind the first amendment. We must protect all speech, even that which we believe is wrong in every possible way.

I totally agree with this statement. The first amendment guarantees you the right to say what you feel like. And there really isn't much people can do about it.

You cannot deny service to a gay person for the same reason you cannot deny it to a black person or a woman, it is an inherent part of the person.

You're saying it's OK to deny service to a-hole neo-Nazis because their ideology is not an inherent part of them. Seems legit. By that logic, it would be OK to deny service to a Muslim or a Christian person specifically for their beliefs (which you disagree with), because their ideology is not an inherent part of them. Basically it's all cool, because they weren't born with that ideology in their chromosomes.

I also see this sort of thinking reflected in leftist preference for physical diversity over intellectual diversity. I'm so inspired.

And you're saying this is cool because all "leftists" think the same way. We don't. That type of thinking is prevalent in AM radio circles. That if it's the opposite of their line of thinking, it must be "leftist" and therefore wrong. I am personally not cool with the censorship that I'm seeing happening. I don't agree with what the Daily Stormer says, but I'm not going to be the one to tell them they can't say what they want to say. The thing is the people known as the "alt right" are playing a very dangerous game with free speech right now. What they really don't understand is that free speech applies to us as much as it applies to them. If you advocate for free speech, but then you want the other side silenced, it's completely detrimental to the argument. It works both ways, and the right can argue one way, and the left can argue the other, but silencing the other side never ends well. What's scary is that repeated silence of the extremists could lead to a SCOTUS showdown over the issue. And that is something that could definitely not end well for either side.

 

[chugot9218]

Your point about religion not being inherent is moot as we recognize the religious as a different protected class, if the nazis want to establish themselves as a religion they have that right, it's pretty easy to establish a religion in the US. I'm sure there are plenty on the right who would support that. Nice try though.

 

[alextheblue]

And you're saying this is cool because all "leftists" think the same way.

I didn't say all leftists think the same way. But in general when leftists preach "diversity" they're talking about diverse identities and physical traits. They do not mean diversity of ideology. You'd know that if you talked to students at universities about "diversity" and what it means.

Also I never said anything about silencing the left. I argued against the sort of de facto censorship powers the great internet powers have.

 

[alextheblue]

Your point about religion not being inherent is moot as we recognize the religious as a different protected class, if the nazis want to establish themselves as a religion they have that right, it's pretty easy to establish a religion in the US. I'm sure there are plenty on the right who would support that. Nice try though.

LMAO. Even many of your fellows on the left would probably find the idea that it's OK to silence non-religious ideologies to be a tough pill to swallow. You're one step away from declaring "wrongthink" a crime. Also, I don't know ANY Nazi supporters or sympathizers. They're such a microscopic minority it's hilarious to think their existence runs rampant in your imagination, haunting your dreams. But even if you hate someone for their non-violent (but vile) thoughts doesn't make silencing them a good idea. It sets a bad precedent for who controls speech on the net. Even the liberal-leaning EFF agrees.

 

[g-unit1111]

And you're saying this is cool because all "leftists" think the same way.

I didn't say all leftists think the same way. But in general when leftists preach "diversity" they're talking about diverse identities and physical traits. They do not mean diversity of ideology. You'd know that if you talked to students at universities about "diversity" and what it means.

Also I never said anything about silencing the left. I argued against the sort of de facto censorship powers the great internet powers have.

My argument wasn't against silencing the left in general. What I'm saying is that if people on either side try to silence the other person's opinions because they don't agree with them, that won't end well for either side. If the right tries to silence the left that won't end well, and if the left try to silence the right, that won't end well either.

 

[chugot9218]

I don't think anything I said could be construed as declaring they have no right to free speech, I simply pointed out why the companies were justified in removing them from their services. You didn't even try to address any of my points you just return to the same straw-man argument and attack that instead, you should learn to think for yourself instead of regurgitating talking points. And I don't hate the Nazis I hate the views they espouse, I pity them instead.

 

[Virtual_Singularity]

Of all the comments here, there is but one, so far, that should have all in agreement on this issue. The first post on this thread, in the second paragraph, reads:

"It's what TOR says about The Daily Stormer that really slays me, though. "We are disgusted, angered, and appalled by everything these racists stand for and do...But we can't build free and open source tools that protect journalists, human rights activists, and ordinary people around the world if we also control who uses those tools." The poster showing us what TOR had to say about the issue is indeed crucial for those who can't or won't understand what this is really about.

Next, the following observation is also crucially made: "Their platform is used by terrorists, child-molesters, pedos, and all manner of criminals, yet it's the 'white nationalists' they speak up against while mealy-mouthing the rest. Priorities." Aye. Priorities, indeed...

That has thus far been the only comment made that says it all. That should have set off alarm bells for any reader who values basic human rights (never mind the US constitution). All should know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that censorship, shutting down honest debate on any idea or topic, is anathema to the very ideals & freedoms we were once told we held dearest to our way of life. The very concept of "hate speech", has no place in this world.

Someone asked, "who decides what hate speech is?" Ya... Sad to say, the highest bidder, aka, those powerful enough who believe themselves fit to determine the fate of the rest of humanity & impose a policy in line with their narrative on the rest. The less than 1% of humanity that rules the other 99.99%. They're the ones who decide for us. It's their plans that the majority of people seem to end up playing into, whether they're aware of it or not. Even a MSM network mentioned just a few days ago that an incredibly small percent of people identify themselves with "white nationalism".

But that isn't the point. The most salient point to be learned here is that only those with something to hide would ever take the steps to use their power to silence, shut down, or even criminalize, debate on any idea.

ALL of us should be disgusted, angered, and appalled. Not merely because yet another website was shut down, but because it's been creeping into our lives for years now, & become the policy of an internet that used to be free. That used to offer some semblance of privacy. That used to offer netizens a platform to hold honest debate and dialogue on ANY idea, issue, or topic. Aaron Swartz was the last champion of a free internet that took effective action which mobilized the whole world into taking action themselves. Sadly, we seem to have no more Aaron Swartz's left to carry on this brilliant young man's legacy.

 

[TJ Hooker]

I don't understand how this is even a question. This is the entire point of the philosophy behind the first amendment. We must protect all speech, even that which we believe is wrong in every possible way.

OK, If it's so simple, whose free speech are we to choose? The ability of these service providers to choose what sort of content/individuals are allowed to use their services? Or the ability of people to have a convenient platform to voice their opinion, regardless of how unpleasant that opinion may be? Both are expressions of free speech. Did you even read the article?

 

[undouble]

Well, Google has already decided that it supports "free speech" so long as that "speech" is in agreement with Google!! In other, clearer language-----------IF Google doesn't like what your trying to say-----it WON'T allow you to say it!! (At least on Google's website). And next week-----1984 becomes a reality!!