White supremacist forum site Stormfront seized by domain hosts

There's something deliciously ironic about this picture, can you see it? Hint: 'Tolerance', it cuts both ways.

 

If liberals no longer understand or believe in the concept of free speech then free speech dies

As for Stormfront if liberals had not proudly celibrated their victory through threads like this or reports on Morning Joe 99% of Americans would not even know it happened because they don't go to the Stormfront website.

Now that has become an issue and I predict that white radficalism will grow rather than decline

 

The internet began in America but it is no longer American but rather globalist

And most countries even those in Europe and Canada do not practice free speech

 

Which make one wonder, was that the point.

 

No it wasn't

Liberals do not think - they emote

Taking down Stormfront made them feel good

And it was only the beginning

Soon they will be shutting down thousands of websites that do no conform to proper liberal feelings

 

You're missing my point.

Media plays a central role in my point.


Manufactured strife, served piping hot.

 

Nonsense. The baker violated local civil rights laws. It's fair to disagree with those laws and you are free to do so. You may petition your local representatives to overturn them. But as long as these laws are on the books, they need to be enforced. We don't need any more lawless leaders like Joe Arpaio and Roy Moore putting their own agendas above the law. But this has nothing to do with religion. A lot of gay folk getting married or ordering cakes are Christians.

 

Local Civil Rights Laws?

Brown v. Board of Education tells us, Seperate but Equal is anything but, so, federal civil rights laws trump any local hogwash you're talking about.

 

That is a stupid law when applied to a Christian baker and a wedding cake for homosexuals

That law was passed to protect black people who could not find a hotel room in a predominantly white city or a place to eat

Not something as trivial as two sexual misfits that want a wedding cake from the baker of their choice

 

To be fair, the reason for taking down Stormfront was complete libel.

- Accusing them for the Charlottesville death : false accusation. First, there's no evidence that Charlottesville was murder. It could just be involuntary manslaughter (the guy panicks when attacked by antifas with bats), or voluntary manslaughter. There are trials to decide these things, innocent until proven guilty. Besides, even if it were murder, stormies didn't call for or justify that kind of violence.

- muh hate, muh bigotry, muh antisemitism, etc : hate speech is constitutionally protected speech, thankfully so.

At the core it's a host making a false accusation of advocating violence for an unproven murder claim and deciding to ban speech they don't like just because they can.

I'm just going to do a Donald on this one and say both sides are equally bad.

 

The local laws include sexual orientation as a protected class, expanding on the federal laws. For the federal laws to override that, they would have to explicitly exclude sexual orientation.

 

Thanks for the good news. I guess that the downside is that all the racists and bigots who infest that site will move on to spread their filth on other forums now that they got some free time on their hands.

 

Read the latest; it's found a new home.

Free speech prevails.

 

The left, which seeks to protect, in excess leans toward totalitarianism, as power accumulates to the government.
The right, which seeks freedoms, in excess leans towards exploitation, as power accumulates in the wealthy.

Western democracies have been successful in having these two forces pull against each-other to maintain a relatively balanced progress.

What's really interesting about the current situation is that "the government" of the ballot box is being superseded by direct representation through social media. But this direct representation is unstructured, and so is not representing all of society and there is no nexus through which to apply a counter-weight from the freedom-loving capitalists.

 

Would you have a problem if ISIS had a website up and running. If you insist all viewpoints can have a website, if not, then debate the issue, instead of making political statements.

 

Government's purpose is to secure your rights. Capitalistic business's purpose is to make profit. The government has nothing to do with this issue.

This issue is about business. To protect their profits, GoDaddy, Google, and others only accept customers that agree to their Terms of Service, where they lay out, often in microscopic print, many behaviors that may marginalize their profits as violations of the Terms of Service. GoDaddy and Google both determined that the Terms of Service were violated, and therefore the site's business was no longer accepted. You accept the Terms of Service on this site, when you register, and your voice here can be removed if you violate the Terms of Service. That doesn't stop you from saying what you want, it just stops you from doing it here. You don't have to like it, but this is a matter of contract law. When the contract is violated, the service can be ended. This is not a matter of free speech. No one is stopping Stormfront, The Daily Stormer, or any other organization from saying what they want to say. The two companies involved have just determined that they can't say it using GoDaddy or Google platforms to do so, since there was a contract violation. From what I have read, the violation had to do with denigrating the woman that was killed in Charlottesville.

This is a separate issue from the gay wedding cake baking, because the web hosting companies didn't disallow all controversial websites from using their services. They just prohibit those that violated the Terms of Service agreement.

 

ISIS, as a terrorist organization, has a goal of killing people and they work as a group to make that happen worldwide. Last I checked, murder and terrorism is illegal. Stormfront is just a website and hasn't broken any laws. Do you not see the difference?

 

Next, you are going to claim that the African Defense League should have their sites shut down because they openly advocate violence, and killing cops.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/this-h...-sniper-micah-xavier-johnson-started-shooting

 

Stormfront is not just a web site!!!

 

The point I've been repeatedly making - and few seem to understand it despite its clarity and simplicity - is that government SHOULD have everything to do with this, but the new public square is in the control of the very (private) entities who seek to narrow discourse for their own benefit.

Today Stormfront, tomorrow Political Forum - that's the issue.

Right now, they're using cover of Charlottesville and boilerplate TOS violations to cherry pick and target certain sites, whether in slowing traffic or yanking access, and it's happening to BOTH sides, left and right.

Selective enforcement, and NO recourse because these ARE private entities.

Our voices are at the mercy of those who seek to narrow and monetize our speech, and that is very unhealthy.

Why are so few grasping this, but endlessly repeating what we all know, and that's that these private entities wield enormous power to stifle speech in the new, true town square because they ARE private entities?

We know this; it doesn't need to be said again.

As to the wedding cake, there actually ARE similarities in play, but again, the private PTB are using cover of these VERY broad TOS clauses to cynically justify censorship. Violations are always present everywhere; we all jaywalk and do a dozen other things in a day that could technically get us jammed up.

VERY unhealthy situation for free speech in the new, true town square.

 

So you can physically touch stormfront? Are they involved in illegal activities. Do they have a headquarters?

 

They'll just register the domain in a foreign country, use an off shore server and be right back.

 

So BLM members should be arrested for inciting riots?

 

No laws override the Constitution.

 

Just how do you want the American government to regulate world-wide internet access through private companies that offer hosting? Are you expecting the government to require companies to grant access to organizations that cost the web host advertising business?

No one is stopping Stormfront from speaking their minds. Stormfront is quite capable of finding another web hosting service, and it seems they have on the dark web, where offensive speech doesn't cost business advertising dollars. So, free speech hasn't been infringed and neither has capitalistic commerce.

As far as the cake baking goes, denying business on the front end is very different than denying business for a breach of contract.