Altright.com domain seized by Go Daddy

Suits

 
kamoz said:
Suits said:
MrLemon said:
Refusing to host a website is the equivalent to refusing to sell paper or printing equipment to a newspaper. It is an explicitly illegal violation of the 1st amendment.

:wtf:

Terrible analogy. The correct comparison would be to say that refusing to sell servers to political groups that you disagree with.

Refusing to host a website is more akin to refusing to let a neo-Nazi skinhead fraternity rent your house or refusing to let Kona to buy space on your bill boards to promote his "Annual Steal A 24-Pack From Walmart Day."

Or refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.....?

That example would fall somewhere in between the two.
 
Suits said:
Refusing to host a website is more akin to refusing to let a neo-Nazi skinhead fraternity rent your house or refusing to let Kona to buy space on your bill boards to promote his "Annual Steal A 24-Pack From Walmart Day."

Houses and billboards are finite physical objects, but the internet is a nearly infinite physical object.

Therefore, your comparison is way, way off.
 

Suits

 
MMX2010 said:
Suits said:
Refusing to host a website is more akin to refusing to let a neo-Nazi skinhead fraternity rent your house or refusing to let Kona to buy space on your bill boards to promote his "Annual Steal A 24-Pack From Walmart Day."

Houses and billboards are finite physical objects, but the internet is a nearly infinite physical object.

Therefore, your comparison is way, way off.

If a hosting company agrees to host a website, the data is physically existing somewhere in their property. And nearly infinite is definitely finite, even if the cost of memory storage has gone done.

The 1st amendment was written into law to prevent the government from restricting speech.

Here's the actual text:

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.

I don't see anything in there limiting the right of property owners to determine what their property is used for.
 

YoungBlade

Hummingbird
All I know is my right to celebrate my religious holiday of "Annual Steal A 24-Pack From Walmart Day" better not be infringed or I'm allying with the Polynesian ethnostate in the race war.
 

Ice Man

Woodpecker
When people say "why isn't Trump doing something about this?", can they articulate what they think the president himself can do?

When people say this is a "violation of the First Amendment" can they please articulate exactly what laws are being broken by GoDaddy in order for them to be prosecuted or face a civil suit?

It is very easy just to throw these statements out there but almost no one can say which laws are being broken. Just saying "violating 1A" isn't enough, not least because well it isn't a 1A violation, 1A has nothing to do with this. It would be great if it did (maybe?), but it doesn't.

To be clear, there absolutely needs to be some sort of fighting back against this, but it can't even begin unless people understand:

- what laws, if any, have been broken (probably none on the case)

- who or what entities can pursue a remedy (i.e. can Trump or the government "do something" about it- probably not)

There are a lot of unrealistic expectations born out of a lack of knowledge of these basics.

The fight back against this has to be through cultural means, unless somehow new laws are able to be passed that protect speech against retaliation by a private party.
 

Suits

 
Ice Man said:
When people say this is a "violation of the First Amendment" can they please articulate exactly what laws are being broken by GoDaddy in order for them to be prosecuted or face a civil suit?

Step 1: Hire legal team.

Step 2: Petition Supreme Court

Step 3: See what happens.

If GoDaddy gets away with this, it is because they are only shutting down websites that are so limited in number and so fringe, that ordinary companies and individuals do not see it as a threat to them. If people began to view it as a threat, you'd see a hosting company come on the market with a business model based on complete freedom to use their hosting services for any legal purpose.

If that doesn't happen, maybe it's because almost no one has empathy for some the most extreme views out there.

That being said, I'm a GoDaddy customer and when my domains come up for renewal in August, I'm planning on transferring them to a different registrar.
 

Architekt

Ostrich
@Roosh: Might be time to start seriously thinking about dumping the forum contents and planning for a migration if you're hosting with them

Not sure how/how often/where you backup the forum data but it might be handy to keep 1 or 2 mirrors with offshore servers in the (at this point, pretty likely) event that you do become a target

Too much important information here and on your blogs to let fade into the abyss

Were all these people not required to read 1984 in school?
 

Kona

Crow
Gold Member
YoungBlade said:
All I know is my right to celebrate my religious holiday of "Annual Steal A 24-Pack From Walmart Day" better not be infringed or I'm allying with the Polynesian ethnostate in the race war.

We'd love to have you.

"Steal a 24-pack" day is the night before Kill Haole Day. So keep your schedule open.

Aloha!
 

JayR

Woodpecker
That being said, I'm a GoDaddy customer and when my domains come up for renewal in August, I'm planning on transferring them to a different registrar.

Ditto. Any free-speech-respecting registrar suggestions?
 
Suits said:
I don't see anything in there limiting the right of property owners to determine what their property is used for.

You're asserting that the words you've posted on this Forum ultimately belong to the corporation that hosts RVF (and totally, definitely not to you).

Are you really okay with this?
 

Suits

 
MMX2010 said:
Suits said:
I don't see anything in there limiting the right of property owners to determine what their property is used for.

You're asserting that the words you've posted on this Forum ultimately belong to the corporation that hosts RVF (and totally, definitely not to you).

Are you really okay with this?

Think this through again and consider the possibility that you are make a logical connection that doesn't exist.
 
Suits said:
Think this through again and consider the possibility that you are make a logical connection that doesn't exist.

Suits, this is what you said.

"If a hosting company agrees to host a website, the data is physically existing somewhere in their property. And nearly infinite is definitely finite, even if the cost of memory storage has gone done.

"I don't see anything in the First Amendment limiting the right of property owners to determine what their property is used for."

It's a really simple connection.

Every word you've written on this Forum DOES NOT exist in a property that you personally own. Rather, every word you've written on this Forum exists in a property owned by a Corporation (the one which hosts this Forum and stores all of its data).

Therefore, you're asserting that every word you've written on RVF does NOT ultimately belong to you, but rather to the corporation that hosts RVF. Are you okay with this?
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
For fucks sake.

Why does it matter if he's OK with it? You want him to whine like a bitch? What?

Meanwhile, is it beyond the bounds of the Federal government of the US to create a provision for the service of domain hosting, even if only as a last resort?

All American customers welcome under the protection of the 1A, the only restriction being against criminally culpable speech (threats, blackmail, extortion, etc)?

Seems like the USFedGov can summon a new multimillion dollar agency into being 8 days a week when it's inclined to do so. And let's not hear any bullshit about "optics" since the only ones that are going to complain are psychotic TDS sufferers anyway.
 

Suits

 
MMX2010 said:
Suits said:
Think this through again and consider the possibility that you are make a logical connection that doesn't exist.

Suits, this is what you said.

"If a hosting company agrees to host a website, the data is physically existing somewhere in their property. And nearly infinite is definitely finite, even if the cost of memory storage has gone done.

"I don't see anything in the First Amendment limiting the right of property owners to determine what their property is used for."

It's a really simple connection.

Every word you've written on this Forum DOES NOT exist in a property that you personally own. Rather, every word you've written on this Forum exists in a property owned by a Corporation (the one which hosts this Forum and stores all of its data).

Therefore, you're asserting that every word you've written on RVF does NOT ultimately belong to you, but rather to the corporation that hosts RVF. Are you okay with this?

If I give a neighborhood kid $20 to host my dog at their place over the weekend while I'm away on business, does the dog become his?
 
Leonard Neubache said:
Why does it matter if he's OK with it? You want him to whine like a bitch? What?

Because an intelligent person in this thread said that "the resistance to this form of censorship must be Cultural".

However, the Cultural belief that Suits possesses, (which is to interpret American laws such that corporations are given carte blanche to impinge upon the rights of citizens unless they get caught and reprimanded by the government), IS NOT a form of Cultural Resistance. It's a form of Cultural Non-Resistance, or more appropriately, Cultural Enablement.


Leonard Neubache said:
Meanwhile, is it beyond the bounds of the Federal government of the US to create a provision for the service of domain hosting, even if only as a last resort?

Of course not.

But these things only happen when the Culture demands them, and Suits' Cultural Beliefs hinders the process by which Culture demands such things.

So does yours.
 
Suits said:
If I give a neighborhood kid $20 to host my dog at their place over the weekend while I'm away on business, does the dog become his?

If you answer a direct question with a stupid and irrelevant metaphor, do you also become stupid and irrelevant - or does this only apply to the metaphor?

Personally, I think only the metaphor becomes stupid and irrelevant, because the person who made it has the ability to say, "Oh shit. That was dumb. Let's try a direct answer instead."

So, please, a direct answer.

You said that, (paraphrasing), "When a company hosts a website, all information on that website is stored on company servers. Because the hosting company owns those servers, then the hosting company owns the data on those servers. And you (direct quote here) don't see anything in there limiting the right of property owners to determine what their property is used for."

Now, because a technology company hosts RVF, then every word you've written on RVF is on one of their servers. This means that the RVF-hosting company owns every word you've posted on RVF. I'm asking, quite simply, whether you're okay with this.
 
Kona said:
YoungBlade said:
All I know is my right to celebrate my religious holiday of "Annual Steal A 24-Pack From Walmart Day" better not be infringed or I'm allying with the Polynesian ethnostate in the race war.

We'd love to have you.

"Steal a 24-pack" day is the night before Kill Haole Day. So keep your schedule open.

Aloha!

Gas the Haole! Race war now!!
 

Papaya

Peacock
Gold Member
It will be interesting to see if the ALCU picks this up.

The ACLU's fight against Internet censorship stretches back a decade. Congress first attempted to censor the Internet in 1996, when it passed the Communications Decency Act. The law criminalized "indecent" speech online. The ACLU sued, arguing that the law abridged the First Amendment. All nine Supreme Court justices agreed and struck down the law. For the first time, in ACLU v. Reno, the Supreme Court recognized that online speech deserves full First Amendment protection.

If I remember correctly the ALCU fought for the Unite The Rights' permit to assemble in Charlottesville and won after the City had denied it
 

Suits

 
I read a few news articles, but saw no evidence that GoDaddy had specifically seized the altright.com domain.

According to one source, the registrar of the domain was given 48 hours to transfer the domain to a different host.

But on Thursday, domain registrar GoDaddy finally pulled the plug on AltRight.com, giving Spencer’s website 48 hours to transfer its domain to another web host or lose it.

I'm not knowledgeable enough about domain registrations to understand what would happen if the 48 hours expired without the domain name being successfully transferred to a different host. Would it then become Godaddy's domain or would it just become unregistered?
 
Top