Another web hosting provider drops The Daily Stormer

[midian182]

The saga of Neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer’s quest to stay online took another twist on Friday when it returned to the internet. But the stay was short lived after its new web hosting company and registrar – Namecheap – said it wouldn't host the site due to its incitement of violence and hate.

In the wake of the Charlottesville protests, domain name seller GoDaddy last week announced that it would no longer allow the Stormer to use its services after founder Andrew Anglin wrote an article disparaging Heather Heyer, who was killed when an alleged white supremacist drove into a crowd of people at the rally.

Google also turned away the site, and although it did find a home with a Russian web host, the Stormer was booted after the country’s media watchdog objected.

On Friday, the Daily Stormer’s admins managed to register with Namecheap, which led to some of the company's customers threatening to leave. The registrar decided to cut ties with the site, and in a lengthy blog post yesterday, CEO Richard Kirkendall explained his decision.

“I believe that hate speech and incitement of violence provides ample legal support for a proper termination of the domains,” he wrote.

Much like Matthew Prince - the CEO of CloudFlare, which also stopped offering its services to the Stormer last week – Kirkendall said that the free speech implications had left him feeling conflicted over his actions.

It was just the morally right thing to do here as this type of hateful speech and veiled call to violence really has no place on this Earth.. That is my personal belief and I would make the same decision again but it is just that, my personal opinion and a business decision. But is this the right thing for freedom of speech and should a registrar be the one making this decision? I don’t think so. In a perfect world, a registrar should be able to remain neutral in these situations regardless of public opinion but the fact of the matter is that this cannot happen in reality. Any business cannot operate under these circumstances due to the mob mentality and the nature of our current politics.

Tech companies are rushing to distance themselves from the Stormer as it continues to search for a web hosting provider, but content delivery network BitMitigate has offered its services to the site. According to ProPublica, 20-year-old founder Nick Lim said he strongly believes in free speech, adding that infrastructure companies shouldn’t drop clients just because they disagree with their views.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/70649-another-web-hosting-provider-drops-daily-stormer.html

 

[amstech]

I can understand companies not wanting to be help these people host a site, its in the fineprint of most business's that they can reject service for any number of reasons. Personally I hate racism and anything related to it. But I hate one thing even more, the disappearance of freedom.

They have a right to act like fools if they want and if you can't stomach that then you need to read the constitution.

 

[davislane1]

I can understand companies not wanting to be help these people host a site, its in the fineprint of most business's that they can reject service for any number of reasons. Personally I hate racism and anything related to it. But I hate one thing even more, the disappearance of freedom.

Amen.

 

[JudasSheep]

I have yet to see an article about the dropping of sites that host Antifa content or people advocating violence against the president (even if you don't agree with him or his policies) or violence against police officers. Violence is violence regardless of race being involved or not. If you want to take down content of those you disagree with, you better do it to everyone who has a similar view, otherwise you are discriminating. Discrimination doesn't have to refer to an age, race, religion or sex. Everyone is entitled to their opinion; if it upsets you, too damn bad, don't read it, listen to it, etc.

I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

I am (was) a United States Sailor. I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and I will obey the orders of those appointed over me. I represent the fighting spirit of the Navy and those who have gone before me to defend freedom and democracy around the world.

 

[Camikazi]

I have yet to see an article about the dropping of sites that host Antifa content or people advocating violence against the president (even if you don't agree with him or his policies) or violence against police officers. Violence is violence regardless of race being involved or not. If you want to take down content of those you disagree with, you better do it to everyone who has a similar view, otherwise you are discriminating. Discrimination doesn't have to refer to an age, race, religion or sex. Everyone is entitled to their opinion; if it upsets you, too damn bad, don't read it, listen to it, etc.

I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

I am (was) a United States Sailor. I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and I will obey the orders of those appointed over me. I represent the fighting spirit of the Navy and those who have gone before me to defend freedom and democracy around the world.

All violence is violence but some violence is more "right" than others. That is the reason it isn't, and won't, happen the companies agree with Antifa and the lefts type of violence so they ignore it.

 

[SylwesterPL]

I can understand companies not wanting to be help these people host a site, its in the fineprint of most business's that they can reject service for any number of reasons. Personally I hate racism and anything related to it. But I hate one thing even more, the disappearance of freedom.

They have a right to act like fools if they want and if you can't stomach that then you need to read the constitution.

Is it good to help the wicked?

 

[dogofwars]

I can understand companies not wanting to be help these people host a site, its in the fineprint of most business's that they can reject service for any number of reasons. Personally I hate racism and anything related to it. But I hate one thing even more, the disappearance of freedom.

They have a right to act like fools if they want and if you can't stomach that then you need to read the constitution.

The thing is the world is not America so the constitution does not apply.

 

[wiyosaya]

I can understand companies not wanting to be help these people host a site, its in the fineprint of most business's that they can reject service for any number of reasons. Personally I hate racism and anything related to it. But I hate one thing even more, the disappearance of freedom.

They have a right to act like fools if they want and if you can't stomach that then you need to read the constitution.

And, in the US - at least read how SCOTUS has weighed in on the issue because it sounds like you see freedom of speech as something that is not entirely in line with what SCOTUS has said. http://constitution.laws.com/the-supreme-court/speech
I do agree with you, but their rights are in no way being infringed if that hate speech has a basis that leads to violence. http://constitution.laws.com/the-supreme-court/speech

I know the some are not going to like my comparison, however, that is how ISIS sites are being shut down because there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the content on their sites will lead to violence. So, if we leave up hate sites, I supposed that we should all jump in and justify leaving ISIS sites up, too, because we are violating their freedom of speech.

But, alas, SCOTUS has already decided this. And if we want to go against SCOTUS, then we either need a law legalizing hate speech (which given even the current garbage political environment in the US is an extremely remote possibility), or the only other alternative would be if the US system of government were replaced by, say, an extremist government where their hate speech is the only thing that is allowed.

I'd say that advocating the deaths of those who the haters have in their sights is something that has already lead to violence. Of course, that is my opinion, and I would just love to see these hate sites take the issue to court. Perhaps then we would have a definitive answer on just what hate speech is and how it is not protected by first amendment rights in the US.

 

[wiyosaya]

I have yet to see an article about the dropping of sites that host Antifa content or people advocating violence against the president (even if you don't agree with him or his policies) or violence against police officers. Violence is violence regardless of race being involved or not. If you want to take down content of those you disagree with, you better do it to everyone who has a similar view, otherwise you are discriminating. Discrimination doesn't have to refer to an age, race, religion or sex. Everyone is entitled to their opinion; if it upsets you, too damn bad, don't read it, listen to it, etc.

I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

I am (was) a United States Sailor. I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and I will obey the orders of those appointed over me. I represent the fighting spirit of the Navy and those who have gone before me to defend freedom and democracy around the world.

Certainly agree. However, it seems the world has become a hot spot for clickbate competition. I am in no way defending that. All hate speech sites have no place as any content on any site that host hateful views could lead to violence.

 

[Someone8MyPosts]

I can understand companies not wanting to be help these people host a site, its in the fineprint of most business's that they can reject service for any number of reasons. Personally I hate racism and anything related to it. But I hate one thing even more, the disappearance of freedom.

They have a right to act like fools if they want and if you can't stomach that then you need to read the constitution.

According to the US Constitution, 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.

These companies aren't congress. They have terms of use that when someone wishes to use their services are bound to. Violation of those terms has nothing to do with constitutional law. Now, if the government were to step in and make those companies do this, that would violate constitutional law.

 

[JudasSheep]

And, in the US - at least read how SCOTUS has weighed in on the issue because it sounds like you see freedom of speech as something that is not entirely in line with what SCOTUS has said. http://constitution.laws.com/the-supreme-court/speech
I do agree with you, but their rights are in no way being infringed if that hate speech has a basis that leads to violence. http://constitution.laws.com/the-supreme-court/speech

I know the some are not going to like my comparison, however, that is how ISIS sites are being shut down because there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the content on their sites will lead to violence. So, if we leave up hate sites, I supposed that we should all jump in and justify leaving ISIS sites up, too, because we are violating their freedom of speech.

But, alas, SCOTUS has already decided this. And if we want to go against SCOTUS, then we either need a law legalizing hate speech (which given even the current garbage political environment in the US is an extremely remote possibility), or the only other alternative would be if the US system of government were replaced by, say, an extremist government where their hate speech is the only thing that is allowed.

I'd say that advocating the deaths of those who the haters have in their sights is something that has already lead to violence. Of course, that is my opinion, and I would just love to see these hate sites take the issue to court. Perhaps then we would have a definitive answer on just what hate speech is and how it is not protected by first amendment rights in the US.

From what the SCOTUS has said about speech, I'll summarize as "if it causes violence." Hate speech does cause violence and therefore should not be considered free since our courts made that ruling. However, I want to point out... What has been said about President Trump has caused violence, yet we have not heard of those saying things like wishing the president were assassinated get arrested not only for threats to the president but for inciting violence against him. Now this brings on the slippery slope of, who has the ability to say what is Hate speech beyond "if it causes violence?" Giving companies the ability to pick and choose what is said by their employees and customers is one thing, but the government saying I can't say X because whatever SCOTUS judge doesn't agree with it could lead us down a dark path. I look at it the same as the Braveheart quote "History is told by those who hung the heros." Who makes the law decides on what is hate and what is not. Do we ban it all or do we let it all fly? I would be for the latter and make it up to the individual to choose who to associate with and who not. I don't have to give my business to a company who supports X cause. This topic is a very interesting one and can have far reaching ramifications no matter the decision that is ultimately made. The inclusion of ISIS in the topic throws a monkey wrench in an already tough debate. Maybe people's attitudes, actions and intelligence need to change more than what they say. I honestly don't know what to do to fix or resolve the problem.

 

[Uncle Al]

It is unfortunate that the framers of the Constitution did not anticipate such things as Nazism or McCarthyism, otherwise we might see some further alteration to several of our amendments. Over the past century "free speech" hasn't been the problem, the problem is what is motivated by that speech. Far too often we want a short cut to a solution rather than work through the system to make desired changes. If you look at the very early days of both movements there was a lot of positive actions that happened; unfortunately, as soon as some degree of power came out of those actions the "good" rapidly deteriorated into the destructive results the world witnessed. And lets not forget that these causes as well as a good deal more, prey upon the young and impressionable ... not unlike our cigarette and alcohol makers do through advertising.

The real solution now is for parents to spend a lot more time teaching their children about all these potholes they are going to face in life and more importantly, teach them to think independently and not fall victim to all the snake oil salesmen out there that want to steal their money, their minds, souls and very existence.