The Daily Stormer May Lose Its Domain

Status
Not open for further replies.

rgMekanic

[H]ard|News
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
5,690
After the events this weekend in Charlottesville GoDaddy sent notification to neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer stating that they had 24 hours to move the domain to another as "they had violated our terms of service." The notification came after a post on The Daily Stormer, which focused on the woman killed during the protests. A spokesperson for GoDaddy stated "Given this latest article comes on the immediate heels of a violent act, we believe this type of article could incite additional violence, which violates our terms of service." The Daily Stormer had moved it's domain to Google today, following the GoDaddy notification, but Google moved quickly to cancel the registration.

While I do not agree with the viewpoints expressed on The Daily Stormer, I also don't agree with GoDaddy's decision. To terminate a service agreement because something "could" happen isn't a very valid argument. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" seems fitting for my standpoint.

"We informed The Daily Stormer that they have 24 hours to move the domain to another provider, as they have violated our terms of service," the company said in a tweet Sunday, adding in an emailed statement, "If no action is taken after 24 hours, we will cancel the service."
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,560
Bakers refuse to bake a cake for gays? Fine, you should be able to refuse service to anyone.
GoDaddy refuses to host neo-Nazi website? No way. That's censorship and they should allow it.

Are people for refusing service as they see fit, or are they for the company being forced to do business with everyone?

Their service, their rules. If you disagree with it, don't do business with them. If I were to threaten people or attack the poster and not the post in the Soapbox, I'd be banned for a while. Keep it up, and I'd be kicked off the site.

It sucks, but it's either freedom for the consumer to do business with any public serving company, or it's freedom for the business to refuse service.

Of course, the terms of service are wonky. "Could cause violence" is different than "caused violence". If you don't do anything and something violent happened because of it, are you liable? If you do something and no violence would have taken place, are you shutting down people's speech?

I could go either way on this one. The site will move onto someplace where it's welcome. The internet won't know any different.
 

doz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
5,867
Bakers refuse to bake a cake for gays? Fine, you should be able to refuse service to anyone.
GoDaddy refuses to host neo-Nazi website? No way. That's censorship and they should allow it.

Are people for refusing service as they see fit, or are they for the company being forced to do business with everyone?

The situations listed above are different. Baker refuses to bake a cake because the purchaser is gay. They never had an agreement or service setup.

In this situation, TDS had a website hosted by GoDaddy. Based on a hypothetical situation, GD is breaching their end of their service by giving them 24 hours to move. You are right, a company should have the right to refuse service to anyone (no matter the reason, I personally am all for that), but a company does not have the right to deny service that is subscribed to based on a hypothetical situation.

IMO, TDS may have a big lawsuit on their hands if played right. Hell, up until this post, I had no idea about this website and while I dont agree or follow, whats right is right. I would go after GD if I were them.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
33,123
The situations listed above are different. Baker refuses to bake a cake because the purchaser is gay. They never had an agreement or service setup.

In this situation, TDS had a website hosted by GoDaddy. Based on a hypothetical situation, GD is breaching their end of their service by giving them 24 hours to move. You are right, a company should have the right to refuse service to anyone (no matter the reason, I personally am all for that), but a company does not have the right to deny service that is subscribed to based on a hypothetical situation.

IMO, TDS may have a big lawsuit on their hands if played right. Hell, up until this post, I had no idea about this website and while I dont agree or follow, whats right is right. I would go after GD if I were them.


I'm not familiar with the state card GoDaddy account. What does it say about what happens when you violate the terms of the agreement?

Are you sure the 24 hour thing is a breach of contract?
 

DKS

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
481
Good for them. Let them find some server in some remote republic.
 

doz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
5,867
I'm not familiar with the state card GoDaddy account. What does it say about what happens when you violate the terms of the agreement?

Are you sure the 24 hour thing is a breach of contract?
They were denying service after 24 hours due to TOS violation.

What violation? GD claims the article "could incite violence". While the article is VERY tasteless and the turd who wrote it should have been run over with the Challenger, it hardly incites violence. With that logic, just about every website has an article on it that could be spun to possibly incite violence.

GD just fell to the pressure and is using this as an out. In the end, it is not right. Do it the right way and wait until the agreed upon service terms are up and let the customer go. Dont fall to pressure from the SJW.


This is one of those things that while people KNOW that GD is just falling to pressure by the media/social media, they dont care because many dont agree with what happened or the group. I dont agree with the group either, but they have just as much right to their beliefs as anyone else. NAACP exists doesnt it? I would venture to say NAACP is on the same level as these clowns, but a completely different setup/perception.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
33,123
They were denying service after 24 hours due to TOS violation.

What violation? GD claims the article "could incite violence". While the article is VERY tasteless and the turd who wrote it should have been run over with the Challenger, it hardly incites violence. With that logic, just about every website has an article on it that could be spun to possibly incite violence.

GD just fell to the pressure and is using this as an out. In the end, it is not right. Do it the right way and wait until the agreed upon service terms are up and let the customer go. Dont fall to pressure from the SJW.


This is one of those things that while people KNOW that GD is just falling to pressure by the media/social media, they dont care because many dont agree with what happened or the group. I dont agree with the group either, but they have just as much right to their beliefs as anyone else. NAACP exists doesnt it? I would venture to say NAACP is on the same level as these clowns, but a completely different setup/perception.

Have you seen the terms of service in order to make that determination conclusively?
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
What violation? GD claims the article "could incite violence". While the article is VERY tasteless and the turd who wrote it should have been run over with the Challenger, it hardly incites violence. With that logic, just about every website has an article on it that could be spun to possibly incite violence.

Have you ever read content The DS or any other such web site? They are clearly are about inciting hatred, the level of anti-Semitic, anti-black, anti-everything that's not white and "Christian" is off the charts. This isn't about speech, this is about raising a literal army to purge this country of non-white elements.
 

doz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
5,867
Have you ever read content The DS or any other such web site? They are clearly are about inciting hatred, the level of anti-Semitic, anti-black, anti-everything that's not white and "Christian" is off the charts. This isn't about speech, this is about raising a literal army to purge this country of non-white elements.
Like I said, everyone has their beliefs. Have I read the content? You must have missed my post above where I had never heard of this site until this post came up so obviously I have not.

Please dont come in here with your shit about these people. They are fucking trash and we all know it, but there are plenty of blacks who openly post videos and such hating white people. Its out there, there is too much of it, and its done by every race. Try to stick to legalities instead of posting with emotion.

And kind of Zara. I believe I found the section it would be in, if it was there. What GD is claiming is in their TOS but the article they are referencing as being in violation does not meet that criteria. Go read the article yourself and read the TOS. I wont post the article as it took me a bit to find it and I dont feel it needs to be posted, but I am sure you can find it.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
But they took their money for how long? Empty gestures and all that.

Sure, the internet is full of sites like this but they've tended to be obscure. When you land yourself in the middle of clusterfuck white supremacist march, the light of day makes a lot of folks uncomfortable.
 

NeoNemesis

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
2,464
The quote read:

Despite feigned outrage by the media, most people are glad she is dead, as she is the definition of uselessness.... A 32-year-old woman without children is a burden on society and has no value.

Sorry, they can go fuck themselves. I wouldn't want my business associated with that kind of sick shit either. These guys seem to lack basic human decency.
 

SixFootDuo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,790
Googles argument is that it is very likely that the web site / domain and it's content incited violence.

They did the right thing.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
Please dont come in here with your shit about these people. They are fucking trash and we all know it, but there are plenty of blacks who openly post videos and such hating white people. Its out there, there is too much of it, and its done by every race. Try to stick to legalities instead of posting with emotion.

If you've not read the content on these sites then you don't know. And no matter how you slice it, there's just no black equivalent to the KKK or the Nazis Party in this country at least. We're talking about people who are following the teachings of eugenics and genocide and have practiced it quite successfully at times. It goes well beyond simple race bigotry.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
If everyone is comfortable there is no free speech.

We're talking about groups that have a long and violet history of the most destructive kinds of racism and bigotry so of course a lot of people aren't comfortable and there's no reason they should be and should have to put up with what is well known about these groups. And they certainly have no history of respecting free speech, indeed the opposite.
 

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
20,733
Bakers refuse to bake a cake for gays? Fine, you should be able to refuse service to anyone.
GoDaddy refuses to host neo-Nazi website? No way. That's censorship and they should allow it.

Are people for refusing service as they see fit, or are they for the company being forced to do business with everyone?

Their service, their rules. If you disagree with it, don't do business with them. If I were to threaten people or attack the poster and not the post in the Soapbox, I'd be banned for a while. Keep it up, and I'd be kicked off the site.

It sucks, but it's either freedom for the consumer to do business with any public serving company, or it's freedom for the business to refuse service.

Of course, the terms of service are wonky. "Could cause violence" is different than "caused violence". If you don't do anything and something violent happened because of it, are you liable? If you do something and no violence would have taken place, are you shutting down people's speech?

I could go either way on this one. The site will move onto someplace where it's welcome. The internet won't know any different.

You have to serve people because back in the day there would be one gas station for the next 50 miles in the desert and some jerk would ban people of color from buying gas from his station. Many people traveling from say the East coast to the West coast wouldn't know which gas stations they were allowed to use and would be stranded. Thus laws were erected to combat these situations.

There are very few laws on the books to preserve what is deemed by the majority of the populace as hate speech. You would probably need to write your congressman and suggest a bill to do so. That would be the correct way to handle it.
 

nomu

Gawd
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
818
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" seems fitting for my standpoint.

That quote doesn't seem to mention defending to the death their right to a domain name registration for what they have to say. They can go say it on Pennsylvania Ave. or Yellowstone Park where it's none of GoDaddy's business.
 

Spidey329

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
8,683
You are right, a company should have the right to refuse service to anyone (no matter the reason, I personally am all for that),

And

but a company does not have the right to deny service that is subscribed to based on a hypothetical situation.

You realize that your argument just flip flopped in the span of a few sentences, right?

If you support a company having the right to refuse service to anyone, no matter what they reason, you also support their ability to remove a website regardless if it's for a hypothetical situation or not.

I'm sure their ToS clears them of this. Usually hosting ToS's have defined termination clauses that state your site can be terminated for any reason.
 

{NG}Fidel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
6,286
The situations listed above are different. Baker refuses to bake a cake because the purchaser is gay. They never had an agreement or service setup.

In this situation, TDS had a website hosted by GoDaddy. Based on a hypothetical situation, GD is breaching their end of their service by giving them 24 hours to move. You are right, a company should have the right to refuse service to anyone (no matter the reason, I personally am all for that), but a company does not have the right to deny service that is subscribed to based on a hypothetical situation.

IMO, TDS may have a big lawsuit on their hands if played right. Hell, up until this post, I had no idea about this website and while I dont agree or follow, whats right is right. I would go after GD if I were them.
why not be able to refuse service due to hypothetical situations?
You just said you are personally all for companies being able to refuse service to anyone no matter the reason. So whats the reason here that you or any others should be upset?
 

schizo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
1,687
You people talking about free speech are dumbasses. The first amendment means you can say whatever you want and not be prosecuted by the government. That's all. It doesn't protect you from being dropped by your ISP or for that matter being banned on a forum like this one for any reason the site owner wants or even no reason at all.

Godaddy and Google don't want to service racists. And that's fine. I agree, I wouldn't piss on those guys if they were on fire. And that's all legal.

There is no federal law mandating it, but several states have laws protecting specific classes from discrimination in goods or services based on sexuality, race, and gender. That's what the gay wedding cake thing was about. Nazis are not a protected class anywhere in the US.
 

Elf_Boy

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
2,458
You people talking about free speech are dumbasses. The first amendment means you can say whatever you want and not be prosecuted by the government. That's all. It doesn't protect you from being dropped by your ISP or for that matter being banned on a forum like this one for any reason the site owner wants or even no reason at all.

Godaddy and Google don't want to service racists. And that's fine. I agree, I wouldn't piss on those guys if they were on fire. And that's all legal.

There is no federal law mandating it, but several states have laws protecting specific classes from discrimination in goods or services based on sexuality, race, and gender. That's what the gay wedding cake thing was about. Nazis are not a protected class anywhere in the US.

I am not sure you understand American free speach.
 

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
I find this to be perfectly fine.
GoDaddy can ban anyone they don't want to for any reason. If i don't like it, i won't use their service.
A baker can ban anyone they don't want to for any reason. If i don't like it, i won't use their service.
It's a fairly straightforward pattern. I like my internet full of all kinds of thought. I don't care if people want to give peace a chance or "spew hatred". It's free speech. If the providers of service want to interject anything other than neutrality on their own thoughts, then i'll avoid them and suggest others do the same.
I don't want mob rule or have people who think they're on moral high ground to decide what's ok or not when it comes to thought. Those people are called fascists.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
I am not sure you understand American free speach.

I think he understands it fine. If I post something on this forum the owner doesn't like, poof, it's gone and maybe me as well. Private concerns are not generally bound by the First Amendment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kor
like this

Logan321

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 9, 2003
Messages
1,900
Hate speech is NOT free speech. In fact, hate speech that incites violence is a criminal act, and certainly not protected. These twats can take their hateful spew and put it somewhere uncomfortable.

Additionally, Free Speech, as protected in the first amendment, is freedom from Government censorship ONLY. It's certainly not freedom from consequence.
 

tacos4me

Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
815
free_speech.png
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
Hate speech is NOT free speech. In fact, hate speech that incites violence is a criminal act, and certainly not protected. These twats can take their hateful spew and put it somewhere uncomfortable.

Speech that's designed to incite violence isn't protected under the First Amendment, that's well established, and if there's any speech that's meant to incite violence it's the speech you'd find on sites like The DS and the ToS of GoDaddy reflects this exception to the 1A.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154

And let's be clear about what's going here. Correct me if I'm wrong. So this guy how has been confirmed by his HS teacher and classmate has Nazis sympathies, he drives a car into a random group of people killing one and injuring more than a dozen others, then a posting on The DS blames the random dead victim for being a fat, childless cow?

That's condoning murder. Pretty sure that gets you trouble in tons of situations.
 

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
Hate speech is NOT free speech. In fact, hate speech that incites violence is a criminal act, and certainly not protected. These twats can take their hateful spew and put it somewhere uncomfortable.

Additionally, Free Speech, as protected in the first amendment, is freedom from Government censorship ONLY. It's certainly not freedom from consequence.
please define hate speech.
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,230
But they took their money for how long? Empty gestures and all that.

yup because go daddy spends their time viewing every single website they host, that's just a stupid waste of time.. do you think google checks every single link they put in their search engine? no they wait until some one reports something then checks it.

please define hate speech.

speech that is intended to insult, offend, or intimidate a person because of some trait (as race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or disability)

there's you're legal definition of hate speech which is everything that website falls under.

there's a time and place to defend the first amendment and peoples rights but quite frankly the idiots from DS don't deserve to be protected by them.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top