Stormfront becomes the latest neo-Nazi site to be shut down by its hosting company

[midian182]

Earlier this month, neo-Nazi site The Daily Stormer was kicked off the open internet following the publication of a disparaging article about Charlottesville victim Heather Heyer. Now, the oldest neo-Nazi/White supremacist forum, Stormfront, has been shut down by its name provider, Network Solutions, LLC.

Stormfront has been around for over twenty years and has been registered at Network Solutions since 1995. A WhoIs search shows the website’s domain status as currently being “under hold.” It’s also been prohibited from transferring, deleting or updating the forum.

The site’s removal is the work of the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, an organization formed at the request of John F Kennedy in 1963. The head of the group, Kristen Clarke, said it had sent a letter to Network Solution’s parent firm Web.com last week, urging Stormfront be removed for violating its Acceptable Use Policy, which prohibits domains from displaying “bigotry, discrimination or hatred.”

“Stormfront.com has been home to over 300,000 registered users who used the website to promote white supremacist violence across the world. In addition to the explicitly bigoted, racist, anti-Semitic, and Islamophobic discussions that take place on Stormfront, more than 100 murders can be traced back to Stormfront users who frequented the site to discuss their hateful ideologies,” wrote Becky Monroe, director of the group’s Stop Hate project. “We will continue to use every tool in our arsenal to disrupt vehicles used to promote and incite racial violence across our country.”

"Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site," Clarke said. "And while bringing down one site won't terminate their efforts, it will make it a little more difficult for white supremacists to sow hatred."

The Southern Poverty Law Center considered Stormfront “the murder capital of the internet.” It says the 100 murders attributed to the site's members took place in the last five years.

As was the case with the Daily Stormer after GoDaddy told it to find another provider, Stormfront will likely discover few, if any, tech companies willing to help it out. According to DNS records, however, the group does have a CloudFlare account. The content delivery network dropped the Stormer last week, something CEO Mathew Prince said was a difficult decision due to its free speech implications.

Stormfront's founder and Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard, the ironically named Don Black, said: "Now [Network Solutions] has taken it upon themselves to censor anybody they want.”

"Late Friday, without any notice, they didn't even send me an email, they decided that Stormfront was politically incorrect, and therefore they could close it down.”

"Not only did they close the domain name, I can't even transfer it. I can't even try to transfer it to another registrar because they can do whatever they want."

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/70762-stormfront-becomes-latest-neo-nazi-site-shut-down.html

 

[EClyde]

Your free speech is next.

 

[VitalyT]

Your free speech is next.

Freedom to spread hatred is nothing better than freedom to kill.

Freedom is a false pretense when it is used for violating freedom of others.

 

[Adhmuz]

"Stormfront's founder and Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard, the ironically named Don Black, said:"

How about we just stop acknowledging this piece of ****ing **** and not spread anything he has to say across the internet anymore? Okay good. Nothing he has to say is of any importance, he might as well be dead.

 

[EClyde]

Freedom to spread hatred is nothing better than freedom to kill.

Freedom is a false pretense when its agenda is to violate freedom of others.

Who decides?

 

[mbrowne5061]

Your free speech is next.

No, it isn't. This was a business deciding that dealing with a room of bored lawyers looking for a case made less sense than simply enforcing their existing TOS.

If any of these websites want to establish their own hosting, maintain their own DNS registry, and put in the work to integrate access into the backbone of the internet, the US govt. is unlikely to stop them until they commit an actual crime. As long as they buy services from private businesses, they will always be subject to the whim of those businesses and whether they actually want to sell their services to someone.

 

[JudasSheep]

Your free speech is next.

No, it isn't. This was a business deciding that dealing with a room of bored lawyers looking for a case made less sense than simply enforcing their existing TOS.

If any of these websites want to establish their own hosting, maintain their own DNS registry, and put in the work to integrate access into the backbone of the internet, the US govt. is unlikely to stop them until they commit an actual crime. As long as they buy services from private businesses, they will always be subject to the whim of those businesses and whether they actually want to sell their services to someone.

So when said group contacts one of the major providers and do what you say, then get shut off because someone lobbied said provider, that is OK? Please allow me to paint you a picture.

So, I do something you don't like. I post it in a Youtube video. You send Youtube a letter asking for its removal. They review it and remove said video. I want what I have to say to be heard, so I go and get my own service, I get my own server and I develop my own platform. You then see I am still saying these things and petition my ISP to drop me. They review it and agree with you and drop me. How am I to get my opinion out there? There is no racism in what I said, just that the sky is purple. You may think my analogy is silly. That the sky is purple isn't hurting anyone. You don't know that. What if there are people out there that say "purple sky people are racist" or "purple sky believers make me scared." Someone somewhere is going to be offended and/or hurt by what is said. By allowing companies to dictate what is acceptable speech you are just finding a loop hole in the first amendment. Someone brings up the SCOTUS that they ruled what is protected under the first amendment. However, that is speech that leads to violence at least how I interpret it (I could be wrong, but that is how I read it and sum it up). If I were to say 49ers rule to a Raiders fan, that could lead to violence just because of what I said. Is that protected under the first amendment? Not according to how I read it, it was speech that incited violence. That is the slippery slope so many people talk about when discussing amendments.

When businesses start using "feelings" as a justification for action, we are in trouble. Just because I say things you don't like and it makes you feel a certain way, is no basis for silencing anyone. FACT and TRUTH should be what decides action. What white supremacists are saying is (IMO) no different than what BLM is saying about cops or white people. Yet you do not see these companies taking down their sites. I am not advocating racist hate. People are racist, it is a part of human nature. You want to argue that, we can off topic, just send me a message. However, to have racist hatred that is something you learn.

 

[penn919]

So when said group contacts one of the major providers and do what you say, then get shut off because someone lobbied said provider, that is OK? Please allow me to paint you a picture.

So, I do something you don't like. I post it in a Youtube video. You send Youtube a letter asking for its removal. They review it and remove said video. I want what I have to say to be heard, so I go and get my own service, I get my own server and I develop my own platform. You then see I am still saying these things and petition my ISP to drop me. They review it and agree with you and drop me. How am I to get my opinion out there? ...

Free markets are a b%$#* aren't they?

 

[Uncle Al]

Freedom to spread hatred is nothing better than freedom to kill.

Freedom is a false pretense when its agenda is to violate freedom of others.

Who decides?

Society decides and in their case it was decided and re-decided over and over again. (No, it wasn't George W even if he did claim to be "the decider")

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

Anybody know if there's a Mafia enlistment site? I'm thinking of becoming a wiseguy with aspirations of becoming a made man later then Capo and hopefully Godfather of the family (The fact I'm not Sicilian shouldn't matter anymore).

 

[JudasSheep]

Free markets are a b%$#* aren't they?

No free markets are not BS. Ignorance, Inflexibility and basing decisions off of "feels" are.

 

[Lurker101]

"Stormfront's founder and Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard, the ironically named Don Black, said:"

How about we just stop acknowledging this piece of ****ing **** and not spread anything he has to say across the internet anymore? Okay good. Nothing he has to say is of any importance, he might as well be dead.

Would you rather have all of these arguments forced underground where they can fester and breed in their own little microcosm or exposed and out in the open for others to see, discuss and debate? If what he says is so bad, isn't it better to have it said with his name and face attached for people to see for what it is and to be openly and logically refuted?

 

[Lurker101]

Someone brings up the SCOTUS that they ruled what is protected under the first amendment. However, that is speech that leads to violence at least how I interpret it (I could be wrong, but that is how I read it and sum it up). If I were to say 49ers rule to a Raiders fan, that could lead to violence just because of what I said. Is that protected under the first amendment? Not according to how I read it, it was speech that incited violence. That is the slippery slope so many people talk about when discussing amendments.

It seems you're looking for clarification here, so I'll offer it. What you're talking about isn't freedom of speech, freedom of expression, it's a call to action. It's not a slippery slope issue because it's usually easily defined as to what is and is not a call to action.

 

[davislane1]

Your free speech is next.

Freedom to spread hatred is nothing better than freedom to kill.

Freedom is a false pretense when it is used for violating freedom of others.

This statement reaches stratospheric levels of unthink. Saying objectionable things does not violate anyone's freedom.

As for spreading hatred...

I want you all to notice something. Something very important.

Less than two months ago many of these white supremacist websites were virtually unknown to the general public. Now they are common knowledge. Moreover, they were previously disregarded as useless forums populated by Dunning-Krugers and Hitler cultists. Now, they are symbols of the oppressed.

The absence of political instinct and naive belief in virtuous censorship on display by the people who support these actions and try to justify them is rather tragic.

When this all leads to complete fascist-style censorship by the alt-left like we've been warning you, you people are going to be honestly baffled as to how we got there. And when you finally figure it out, you're going to blame someone else for causing it.

Fortunately the war will be quick.

 

[JudasSheep]

"When this all leads to complete fascist-style censorship by the alt-left like we've been warning you, you people are going to be honestly baffled as to how we got there. And when you finally figure it out, you're going to blame someone else for causing it."

Love this!

 

[wiyosaya]

Your free speech is next.

No, it isn't. This was a business deciding that dealing with a room of bored lawyers looking for a case made less sense than simply enforcing their existing TOS.

If any of these websites want to establish their own hosting, maintain their own DNS registry, and put in the work to integrate access into the backbone of the internet, the US govt. is unlikely to stop them until they commit an actual crime. As long as they buy services from private businesses, they will always be subject to the whim of those businesses and whether they actually want to sell their services to someone.

So when said group contacts one of the major providers and do what you say, then get shut off because someone lobbied said provider, that is OK? Please allow me to paint you a picture.

So, I do something you don't like. I post it in a Youtube video. You send Youtube a letter asking for its removal. They review it and remove said video. I want what I have to say to be heard, so I go and get my own service, I get my own server and I develop my own platform. You then see I am still saying these things and petition my ISP to drop me. They review it and agree with you and drop me. How am I to get my opinion out there? There is no racism in what I said, just that the sky is purple. You may think my analogy is silly. That the sky is purple isn't hurting anyone. You don't know that. What if there are people out there that say "purple sky people are racist" or "purple sky believers make me scared." Someone somewhere is going to be offended and/or hurt by what is said. By allowing companies to dictate what is acceptable speech you are just finding a loop hole in the first amendment. Someone brings up the SCOTUS that they ruled what is protected under the first amendment. However, that is speech that leads to violence at least how I interpret it (I could be wrong, but that is how I read it and sum it up). If I were to say 49ers rule to a Raiders fan, that could lead to violence just because of what I said. Is that protected under the first amendment? Not according to how I read it, it was speech that incited violence. That is the slippery slope so many people talk about when discussing amendments.

When businesses start using "feelings" as a justification for action, we are in trouble. Just because I say things you don't like and it makes you feel a certain way, is no basis for silencing anyone. FACT and TRUTH should be what decides action. What white supremacists are saying is (IMO) no different than what BLM is saying about cops or white people. Yet you do not see these companies taking down their sites. I am not advocating racist hate. People are racist, it is a part of human nature. You want to argue that, we can off topic, just send me a message. However, to have racist hatred that is something you learn.

Glad to see that you referenced my prior posts regarding SCOTUS decisions on the matter.

Private entities do have a right to specify terms of service whether we like it or not. If your example web site gets taken down because someone complains, then you certainly have the right in the US to petition for redress, and to appeal any decisions that are not in your favor up to SCOTUS. Yes, you can sue and it is also right. In its essence, all US citizens have the right to ask the government, in this case, the court system, to step in and solve the problem.

Please explain to me how these sites are different than the sites that ISIS or al-qaeda maintain. If you cannot explain it in terms that do not involve religion or race, then perhaps you should be defending the freedom of speech rights for those groups, too.

It is not the provider's fault that violations of the terms of service go unnoticed. In the past, I have gotten plenty of SPAM from internet sludge. It is a violation of most ISP's terms of service to use their service to send spam. If no one reports it, the ISP is likely to busy tracing down other issues that it goes unnoticed. So, what do I do? https://www.spamcop.net/ to let the providers know. Most times, the spammers get eradicated. So if someone points out that a site is in violation of the terms of service of the ISP, it is likely that a site will get taken down. Yet that site, especially if it is run by a US citizen, still has the right to petition for redress.

So if you believe that BLM, or other alt-left sites as you call them, are violating the terms of service of their ISP, complain. Perhaps the ISP will listen to you and take their sites down, too, especially if it is as you say that they, too, are racist and promoting hate, death, and violence.

"When this all leads to complete fascist-style censorship by the alt-left like we've been warning you, you people are going to be honestly baffled as to how we got there. And when you finally figure it out, you're going to blame someone else for causing it."

Love this!

Personally, I call this overgeneralizing. Honestly, I am more concerned that extremists will collect those with similar views and persist in advocating violence. Calling for the extermination of all who are "not pure" seems to be something that catches the attention of like-minded people. As you said, hatred is learned.

 

[wiyosaya]

Your free speech is next.

Freedom to spread hatred is nothing better than freedom to kill.

Freedom is a false pretense when it is used for violating freedom of others.

This statement reaches stratospheric levels of unthink. Saying objectionable things does not violate anyone's freedom.

As for spreading hatred...

I want you all to notice something. Something very important.

Less than two months ago many of these white supremacist websites were virtually unknown to the general public. Now they are common knowledge. Moreover, they were previously disregarded as useless forums populated by Dunning-Krugers and Hitler cultists. Now, they are symbols of the oppressed.

The absence of political instinct and naive belief in virtuous censorship on display by the people who support these actions and try to justify them is rather tragic.

When this all leads to complete fascist-style censorship by the alt-left like we've been warning you, you people are going to be honestly baffled as to how we got there. And when you finally figure it out, you're going to blame someone else for causing it.

Fortunately the war will be quick.

Uh huh. The "danger" exists for the alt-right, too, whether it suits your definition of danger or not.

Point of fact: WWII was about issues that the extremists in the alt-right claim they are willing to fight to the death for. Look at what happened to the WWII era extremists who promulgated such views.

 

[JudasSheep]

"Please explain to me how these sites are different than the sites that ISIS or al-qaeda maintain. If you cannot explain it in terms that do not involve religion or race, then perhaps you should be defending the freedom of speech rights for those groups, too."

They are not different. If you are going to ban all extremist content for the reason they are extremist, that is fine with me. That is taking the stance that ALL extreme behavior is wrong. What I have issue with is that at this point in time, what we are discussing is separated by who is asking for the ban. I specifically used BLM because it is basically the modern version of the Black Panthers. They have promoted violence against white people. Which is no different than a white supremacists promoting violence against non-whites. Which is no different than promoting violence against Jews or Christians (except those are religions not races) and I even say block the ones promoting violence against Arabs and Muslims. You can't pick and choose who is ok and who isn't. Either you ban it all or you allow all. In this instance there is no grey area.

 

[penn919]

No free markets are not BS. Ignorance, Inflexibility and basing decisions off of "feels" are.

And yet they are exactly what facilitate the freedom of private businesses to set their own terms of service. A believer in free markets should understand that. It has nothing to do with "feels". If a website that you host starts to negatively affect your public reputation/image, you will drop it like a bad habit. It's a matter of ideology vs profits. Businesses are sustained by the latter. It's not rocket science. If you feel that public attitudes towards hate speech needs to change, then you as an individual have the liberty to actively campaign towards that goal. Good luck with that...

 

[centrino207]

Your free speech is next.

Than advocate net neutrality.

Otherwise the owner of the web site or message board are subject to TOS of the hosting company . And owner has to find hosting company that will allow it be it in the US or some other country.

 

[centrino207]

"Please explain to me how these sites are different than the sites that ISIS or al-qaeda maintain. If you cannot explain it in terms that do not involve religion or race, then perhaps you should be defending the freedom of speech rights for those groups, too."

They are not different. If you are going to ban all extremist content for the reason they are extremist, that is fine with me. That is taking the stance that ALL extreme behavior is wrong. What I have issue with is that at this point in time, what we are discussing is separated by who is asking for the ban. I specifically used BLM because it is basically the modern version of the Black Panthers. They have promoted violence against white people. Which is no different than a white supremacists promoting violence against non-whites. Which is no different than promoting violence against Jews or Christians (except those are religions not races) and I even say block the ones promoting violence against Arabs and Muslims. You can't pick and choose who is ok and who isn't. Either you ban it all or you allow all. In this instance there is no grey area.

What is your point? If such time that social changes change and major change to right in future they could ban BLM and liberal sites in the future. They would have to find other hosting company.

 

[centrino207]

Who decides?

When you pick hosting company to host your web site or message board it is up to you to read the TOS. If your web site or message board break the TOS they could take it down. It up to you to find other hosting company in US or some other country.

People think we have internet neutrality and we do not.

 

[wiyosaya]

"Please explain to me how these sites are different than the sites that ISIS or al-qaeda maintain. If you cannot explain it in terms that do not involve religion or race, then perhaps you should be defending the freedom of speech rights for those groups, too."

They are not different. If you are going to ban all extremist content for the reason they are extremist, that is fine with me. That is taking the stance that ALL extreme behavior is wrong. What I have issue with is that at this point in time, what we are discussing is separated by who is asking for the ban. I specifically used BLM because it is basically the modern version of the Black Panthers. They have promoted violence against white people. Which is no different than a white supremacists promoting violence against non-whites. Which is no different than promoting violence against Jews or Christians (except those are religions not races) and I even say block the ones promoting violence against Arabs and Muslims. You can't pick and choose who is ok and who isn't. Either you ban it all or you allow all. In this instance there is no grey area.

As I see it, we are on the same page.

However, if you have a site where BLM are advocating for the death of any or all non-blacks, I would be interested in seeing it. The BLM movement using the fist that the black panthers used, IMO, does not necessarily equate them and their policies with the militant activities of the black panthers. I am sure that there are people out there that do see it that way.

Maybe you can find examples of hate speech or outright advocacy of death to all non-blacks on this site - http://www.blacklivesmatterchicago.com/home.html Personally, I don't see anything at all like that.

 

[wiyosaya]

Fortunately the war will be quick.

Yes, especially since the Joint Chiefs of Staff have condemned racism.

 

[Eddo22]

Religious freedom will be soon too. Forced One world religion is one the way. These are sad times we live in, in many respects.