Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

easydns.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 163 posts

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#111

Post by jgmmo »

LiquidInsect wrote: post #105
jgmmo wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"don't want to live in a world where people feel comfortable doing whatever they want as long as it's legal." Lol why not? Sounds like freedom.

Because it used to be legal to own people.

So because laws are not perfect, and have at times in the past illustrated issues in our society, because they are the result of a long-term evolution, they can not be trusted? Ever?

Do you not think that in the long-run that our law will make all that is universally agreed to be unethical and harmful to others also illegal?

What I'm saying is law marches in the direction of ever improving it's fit to society. You seem to throw that out the window and think of law as some unrelated and untrustable thing.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#112

Post by briholt »

Rusky wrote: post #102
briholt wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Extremists" like that communist agitator Martin Luther King and all those "extremist" satanic homosexuals spreading AIDS? Good thing we stopped them from speaking, right? Go to Saudi Arabia, they support free speech, except for those extremists who claim Mohamed wasn't the true prophet of Allah. Back in the USSR they supported free speech, except for those extremists who undermined worker morale. Pretending you and…

The particular speech in question matters here at some level, doesn't it? Society is messy and collaborative, and applying a first amendment-style rule to literally everyone on literally every subject is untenable. In a sense it's even paradoxical. You can't say that everyone must uphold free speech on every subject without restricting their own freedom in some way.

No.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#113

Post by jgmmo »

burkaman wrote: post #109
jgmmo wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"don't want to live in a world where people feel comfortable doing whatever they want as long as it's legal." Lol why not? Sounds like freedom.

I don't think so, I think it sounds like people abdicating their ethical power to the government. I'd rather live in a world where people are willing to break unjust laws sometimes, and uphold morals that don't exist in law. The government should not dictate our morals and culture. For example, we have a culture that (rightly) discourages lying, but making lying illegal would be a disaster.

When lies cause harm to others they are usually a type of fraud. Those are crimes.

Edit: I'm talking 'real' harm. The kind you could sue someone for, with real actual damages. Not simply emotional distress or inconvenience.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#114

Post by guilhas »

archagon wrote: post #50
briholt wrote: post #43

Another cowardly "free speech but..." Either you support free speech (including Nazis or whatever today's boogeyman is) or you don't support free speech at all. Claiming you support free speech only when you like the speech is abjectly idiotic. When you start blocking people from using your service for their speech, it's time to stop calling yourself the "free speech registrar."

Why does it have to be either/or? Society does not operate by strictly logical principles. I see no problem with "mostly free speech, except for extremists".

Because extremists exist, and are a product of society. You can hide them, but that does not solve the issue.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#115

Post by Domenic_S »

Frondo wrote: post #59
bmelton wrote: post #3

Somewhat dichotomously, I agree with every position mark takes in the linked post, but at the same time, I'm quietly waiting to see where Daily Stormer ends up landing, so that I can start treating them as the 'real' bastions of free speech, and very likely start throwing them my business. It isn't because I'm sympathetic to the nazis in this scenario, but if you're trying to position yourself as "the free speech reg…

Preface: this is an honest question, stemming from my own life and current group of friends--the circumstances that frame the issue for me--it isn't intended as snark or a take-down or anything... Do you have many friends right now who are people of color, or queer/gay, or even Jewish? How do you explain to them that you'd like to support the business that goes against the grain and hosts Nazi/white supremacist mater…

> they're all terrified

This is an odd phenomenon that's only happened in the last couple of years -- situations that folks would previously describe as "disheartening" or "disappointing" are now characterized as "terrifying". It's clever, really -- expressing concern over your physical well being (even when there isn't really any danger) is a cognitive kill-switch; physical safety is at the bottom of the hierarchy of needs, after all.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#116

Post by amluto »

marchenko wrote: post #39
msla wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It even means a restaurant should be able to refuse to seat (pick one): black people, white people, males, redheads, left-handed people or introverts. Whatever. They probably won’t stay in business very long, it’s a form of corporate Darwinism. I find it ironic that this is (presumably) precisely the position The Daily Stormer would take on those issues.

The civil rights era argument outlines a pretty solid meta-principle. Certain public accomodations should be open to all. I think this list should be limited, but a public service that effectively acts as a gateway to public speech could be argued to meet the criteria. I think we're seeing an illustration of the point(also made during the civil rights era) that the cost of discriminating against a disliked minority c…

The cost of discriminating can be negative, for example, if the wealthier group that you allow in prefers your establishment if you keep the group they dislike out.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#117

Post by burkaman »

jgmmo wrote: post #113
burkaman wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so, I think it sounds like people abdicating their ethical power to the government. I'd rather live in a world where people are willing to break unjust laws sometimes, and uphold morals that don't exist in law. The government should not dictate our morals and culture. For example, we have a culture that (rightly) discourages lying, but making lying illegal would be a disaster.

When lies cause harm to others they are usually a type of fraud. Those are crimes. Edit: I'm talking 'real' harm. The kind you could sue someone for, with real actual damages. Not simply emotional distress or inconvenience.

If I promise to pick my friend up at the airport and don't go, have I harmed them? Is it a crime?

If I run for president and lie about my positions to get elected, have I harmed anyone? Is it a crime?

If I create a second identity and maintain two relationships in different states, have I harmed anyone? Is it a crime?

In response to your edit, yes, that's exactly the point. Not all harm can be sued for. Not all wrongs are illegal. Some wrongs cannot be illegal.

If I promise to be faithful to my wife and then cheat on her, do you believe I've done anything wrong? If so, do you think it should be illegal?

Or let's take emotion out of it and focus on "real actual damages". Say I verbally promise my friend a job at my company in New York and encourage them to move here, with no intention of actually hiring them. Have I harmed them if they trusted me enough to sign an expensive lease in New York? If so, should it be illegal to break a verbal promise? Should everyone act like robots and refuse to trust each other without written contracts?

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#118

Post by burkaman »

jgmmo wrote: post #111
LiquidInsect wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it used to be legal to own people.

So because laws are not perfect, and have at times in the past illustrated issues in our society, because they are the result of a long-term evolution, they can not be trusted? Ever? Do you not think that in the long-run that our law will make all that is universally agreed to be unethical and harmful to others also illegal? What I'm saying is law marches in the direction of ever improving it's fit to society. You se…

"law marches in the direction of ever improving it's fit to society"

Right, we're all in agreement here. Law should conform to society, society need not conform to law. When the law is wrong, we can resist it, and when the law is absent, we can replace it.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#119

Post by pizza »

Rusky wrote: post #102
briholt wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Extremists" like that communist agitator Martin Luther King and all those "extremist" satanic homosexuals spreading AIDS? Good thing we stopped them from speaking, right? Go to Saudi Arabia, they support free speech, except for those extremists who claim Mohamed wasn't the true prophet of Allah. Back in the USSR they supported free speech, except for those extremists who undermined worker morale. Pretending you and…

The particular speech in question matters here at some level, doesn't it? Society is messy and collaborative, and applying a first amendment-style rule to literally everyone on literally every subject is untenable. In a sense it's even paradoxical. You can't say that everyone must uphold free speech on every subject without restricting their own freedom in some way.

The paradox being "either 'everyone must let others speak freely' or 'you are free to decide when others can't speak freely' but not both?"

Why would this paradox arise in a just society? Specifically the second condition.

My (Kantian) ethical justification for the first is "in any situation where I use the rule, I would want its use to be universally established", whereas in the second condition it is clearly false to say that every situation where I restrict someone else's speech coexists with my desire for everyone else to decide when another's speech should be restricted, since my desire to censor and my opponent's opposite desire would contradict that I am acting how I would if I wanted the rule to be universal.

Isn't the only freedom you're restricting by upholding free speech, the freedom to arbitrarily restrict freedoms all for the sake of promoting big-picture freedom? I find it hard to see this as consistent. What kinds of scenarios do you see as too messy/exceptional/extraordinary where freedom of speech becomes a self-imposed restriction?

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#120

Post by KekDemaga »

minikites wrote: post #71
KekDemaga wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do you support businesses that oppose quartering soldiers in the homes of citizens? Given the option I'd pick them over a alternative.

I suppose I'm still not conveying my point (or I'm misunderstanding the points of others). Either way (pro-quartering/speech or anti-quartering/speech) a business has no impact on those rights. A business can't decide to quarter soldiers in your house. A business can't "restrict" free speech (unless that business is a complete monopoly in that market, a separate issue) as a user can easily find another registrar or s…

>Put another way, if your local theater won't allow you to show "Triumph of the Will", that's not a restriction on your speech, because you can start your own theater.

Legally we agree, but I can also choose to not support those businesses.

Post reply on HN