GoDaddy pulls the plug on Neo-Nazi site

[WskyDK]

Lol
Someone hacked our site, posted an article that's 100% our wheelhouse, and we left it up for ~24 hours.

[Heladys]

"Opression is bad, unless it's my side doing it to people I don't like."

The Nazis see it differently: "All oppression is great, except when it's turned around on us"

[Doctor Amadeus]

"Opression is bad, unless it's my side doing it to people I don't like."

I don't like Alex Jones doesn't mean I would support taking away his right to be a fucking dipshit, I would however the moment he steps over the line and advocates killing all the lizard people and even then like in the past he can me open to civil and criminal prosecution.


But when you have Nazi Group, openly advocating War on U.S Soil with chants like "Blood and Soil" that is no longer a free speech issue,that is a safety and life issue which the Constitution also lays the fuck out.

[McTroll]

What are you even talking about? Read the posts THEN comment.

The eternal "U KENT REED" response. Always a nice copout, isn't it?

[Wildtree]

The host can deny them use of their services. ISP's shouldn't. Nazis or Antifa I don't care. Nothing should be banned just because we don't like it. Fuck the rights of private companies wanting to protect their PR.

Web hosts, and ISPs have the same purpose. Both are businesses.
Both can discriminate one way or another.
You'd have a point though if the ISP is a public access point.

[Pannonian]

The host can deny them use of their services. ISP's shouldn't. Nazis or Antifa I don't care. Nothing should be banned just because we don't like it. Fuck the rights of private companies wanting to protect their PR.

This is actually the most important question in this all. And this should be discussed very carefully and not in the moment of emotion. It basically revolves around: We value our free society and one of this principles is to encourage diversity in all forms. This of course includes speech, and political expression. So the administration of our society needs to protect these rights.

The problem arises in the moment some of this speech and political expression wants to destroy the whole society. If the Nazis came to power again, they would abolish all the freedoms we cherish right now. So should we defend our ideals to extremes for them to ultimately get taken away by the ones they protected in the first place, or do we limit our own freedoms to protect them, and thereby becoming hypocrites.

This is the question for me. And ... i have no answer... really, its i think one of the toughest questions in politics. I think it depends on case to case and in the end you will have to chip on some ends, but you need to be immensely careful (patriot act ). I think its okay to be troubled by it. The only people i deeply distrust are the ones claiming one extreme with absolute certainty.

[Acidz]

I wonder how tolerant these nazi apologists are towards outlets spreading jihadist ideology.

[Tyrianth]

Wait a minute, if the government establishes protected classes, isn't this just a way for the government to use back door rules to censor dissent? Your stance is irreconcilable with 'protected classes' existing.

- - - Updated - - -



Do you believe that protected classes should exist?

Stop crying about the government. This has nothing to do with the government, the government did not force GoDaddy to drop the Nazis as customers. The government didn't censor shit.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I wonder how tolerant these nazi apologists are towards outlets spreading jihadist ideology.

You know damn well they would shit a fucking brick, because the moment anybody even so much as mentions Sharia Law as if that shit has a snow balls chance in hell of ever being implemented, you have mobs of idiots who never actually read the fucking bible or reflected on their own beliefs long enough to know why Sharia WONT be coming to the U.S and how their behavior models just as much what they claim to be against.

As some who point out Antifa and some of their tactics when combating fascist.

[Aeula]

I care if Antifa start specifically targeting people and making threats on the level Traditionally known for Nazi's they can get the same treatment. ISP's aren't my friend nor specifically my enemies and I am under no delusion they have my best interest at heart, but I am sure as fuck sure Nazi's don't as for Net Neutrality, I would like to say maybe.

But it just seems so many people screaming about Net Neutrality often have their own shady objectives, and responses.


Making a site where you muse as to where Obama came from or his wife being UGLY, that is fucked up but fine, If you want to suggest that Liberals are all Lizard people and theorize what ever fucked up Alex Jones, David Icke bullshit you want.

But when you specifically target and decide with a group especially one that has a clear and defined role not only historically in a conflict WAR with the U.S over said issues, but have killed murdered, and threaten to do so again, which recent results.

Yeah you aren't protected by free speech, your race or any other bullshit being used.

True freedom of speech means allowing all opinions, even stupid ones. Real Democracy thrives on discrediting bad notions with words rather than a show of power or censorship.

Once we start banning some things it will always leave a gap open to ban more. If we truly believe an opinion is wrong we should let that opinion be said and then discredit it. Censoring it just makes more people flock to those ideologies because they see those the top as fearful.

[melodramocracy]

People look at this as a very cut and dry scenario because this storm-edgelord site is (rightfully) viewed as a complete waste of everyone's time. If GoDaddy or another ISP were to refuse hosting to something less volatile, you'd see many opinions in this thread suddenly change their course.

[McTroll]

True freedom of speech means allowing all opinions, even stupid ones. Real Democracy thrives on discrediting bad notions with words rather than a show of power or censorship.

Once we start banning some things it will always leave a gap open to ban more. If we truly believe an opinion is wrong we should let that opinion be said and then discredit it. Censoring it just makes more people flock to those ideologies because they see those the top as fearful.

Only thing is... in this case, this is a private company that's involved, not a government body. They can do whatever they want.

Now, let's say we'd start policing private companies (good luck getting that done without losing tons of businesses, but just for the sake of argument). Where do we draw the line, and more importantly, who draws it? A sole person? A council? Aren't we just opening the door to further control being shoved down our throats?

[melodramocracy]

First amendment protects unpopular speech.

No, it doesn't. We've been through this in other threads. It protects a very small example of how speech can be used against the gov't, and that's all.

[schwarzkopf]

Relevant to the discussion:

Paradox of Intolerance
The paradox of tolerance, first described by Karl Popper in 1945, is a decision theory paradox. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.

[McTroll]

Relevant to the discussion:

Paradox of Intolerance
The paradox of tolerance, first described by Karl Popper in 1945, is a decision theory paradox. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.

I agree, as long as society is intolerant of the intolerant actions and attitude, rather than the individuals themselves. Individuals can reform.

[Cilraaz]

Web hosts, and ISPs have the same purpose. Both are businesses.
Both can discriminate one way or another.
You'd have a point though if the ISP is a public access point.

Currently, ISPs are labeled as common carriers. So they essentially are a public access point. Part of eliminating net neutrality was removing the common carrier classification for ISPs. Under Title II, ISPs can't discriminate.

[Doctor Amadeus]

True freedom of speech means allowing all opinions, even stupid ones. Real Democracy thrives on discrediting bad notions with words rather than a show of power or censorship.

Once we start banning some things it will always leave a gap open to ban more. If we truly believe an opinion is wrong we should let that opinion be said and then discredit it. Censoring it just makes more people flock to those ideologies because they see those the top as fearful.

True Freedom of speech, well OK that is our opinion I can't really argue with your view.

There is certainly the letter and spirit of the constitution as it relates to the laws of the U.S and to a greater extent how that specifically relates to the application.


It doesn't have to be a this or that, and I do understand censoring unpopular speech and shutting down hate speech are two different things. Unpopular speech should never be punished by the government. Hate speech inciting riots, specifically attacking and targeting groups of individuals for an agenda or political goal shouldn't be tolerated.

Doesn't matter who you are


But sorry I disagree with the mantra once we start banning Hate speech as it relates to Unpopular speech. And in the modern era it is how some of the stupidity shit has slid under the radar and why people right now are being killed.

[Deleted]

I don't mind a second denazification. But there are plently more extremisms that need to be sweeped.

[ProfessorTjc]

GoDaddy is just refusing to give their service to site... the equivalent of a store owner refusing to give his service to a customer.

[Aeula]

Only thing is... in this case, this is a private company that's involved, not a government body. They can do whatever they want.

Now, let's say we'd start policing private companies (good luck getting that done without losing tons of businesses, but just for the sake of argument). Where do we draw the line, and more importantly, who draws it? A sole person? A council? Aren't we just opening the door to further control being shoved down our throats?

I'd say a council. Preferably adding it to whatever constitutions the various countries of the world have. We don't let companies discriminate based on gender, race and sexual orientation. We shouldn't let them discriminate on opinions either.