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

DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 153 posts

Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists

#131

Post by tw04 »

0x00000000 wrote: post #20
Stefan-H wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Google and Go-Daddy have a right to deny service to anyone they like. The constitution only protects individuals from the government infringing on their right to free speech.

>And Google and Go-Daddy have a right to deny service to anyone they like People keep saying this but I don't think it is true at all. Not trying to be inflammatory, but that wasn't too popular of an opinion when it was the bakery refusing to make a cake for a gay couple

Nazis aren't a protected class in the US. Homosexuals are+.

+Not in every state

Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists

#132

Post by EGreg »

wildmusings wrote: post #76
EGreg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh you mean like this? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/06/19... And people still say they are worried about voting from an app with cryptography.

The media hoopla around that story was largely Fake News. Everything in that database was taken from public records. The only value of the database is the painstaking work of making all of those public record requests to the thousands of jurisdictions in the United States, and then merging and cleaning up the data. But several organizations have done it at this point and all a leak would do is potentially cause those…

The question is WHY are those public records taken and stored in the first place??

Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists

#133

Post by yew »

whipoodle wrote: post #86

Somehow I doubt all our stalwart free-speech proponents from the other week will come out in force for this issue.

It's for the best. Now if they just learn to stay away from right-wing causes too, maybe they'll actually make the world a better place.

Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists

#134

Post by pdx »

openasocket wrote: post #122
pdx wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> much as the moniker "alt-right" legitimizes white > supremacists. Actually, alt-right was coined as a term to differentiate people who adhere to the traditional republican/libertarian views about personal liberty and small government from the neo-conservatives such as Romney, McCain, Graham, and others who push so strongly for nation-building and big government. The collection of people that are drawn to the ideal…

Source? The Southern Poverty Law Center says it was coined by Richard Spencer to describe a white nationalist political ideology: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideo...

The Southern Poverty Law Center is notoriously biased [1] against any non-progressive ideology, which includes alt-right and libertarian ideals. If this is indeed their actual opinion, it is wrong. I suspect even they know it is not true. Alt-right traces is lineage back to Ron Paul and the tea-party.

[1] http://www.dailywire.com/news/8967/7-things-you-need-know-ab...

Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists

#136

Post by greglindahl »

BearGoesChirp wrote: post #50
whateveracct wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On an un-related matter, domain registrars (Google, Go-Daddy) shouldn't be the ones censoring free speech of the alt-right by revoking Daily Stormer's registration. However vile and despicable the views expressed on the site, they have a constitutional right to it. Google and GoDaddy are not beholden to the constitution and are well within their rights to reject the Daily Stormer. White supremacy isn't a suspect cl…

While we remain on the off topic, what happens if it is a private company providing a service that seems very similar to one the government provides? Imagine if eventually USPS went away, could FedEx/UPS decide to not do business with a group they didn't like (say no mail for anyone under 30)? What if all public libraries were eventually replaced by private ones and any pro-liberal material removed? I think discussin…

UPS and FedEx are "common carriers".

Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists

#137

Post by openasocket »

pdx wrote: post #134
openasocket wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source? The Southern Poverty Law Center says it was coined by Richard Spencer to describe a white nationalist political ideology: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideo...

The Southern Poverty Law Center is notoriously biased [1] against any non-progressive ideology, which includes alt-right and libertarian ideals. If this is indeed their actual opinion, it is wrong. I suspect even they know it is not true. Alt-right traces is lineage back to Ron Paul and the tea-party. [1] http://www.dailywire.com/news/8967/7-things-you-need-know-ab...

Do you have any sources to back up your claim the the term "Alt-right" can be traced back to Ron Paul and the tea party?

Wikipedia says the first usage of the term "alternative right" was by Paul Gottfried in 2008 (http://forward.com/news/national/348372/meet-the-jewish-pale...)

It also says that the first usage of the contracted form "alt-right" was by Richard Spencer. https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/alt-ri... http://www.newyorker.com/news/benjamin-wallace-wells/is-the-... and https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-dona... quote Spencer as claiming to be the person who coined the term. And there's like a dozen other citations on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

Where are your sources?

Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists

#138

Post by pmarreck »

cypherpunks01 wrote: post #17
pmarreck wrote: post #2

Good for them.

'Them' meaning Dreamhost? Sorry to be pedantic but there are multiple subjects in the article/title and no other context.

The subject line of this submission was edited in the meantime.

Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists

#139

Post by threatofrain »

mrbabbage wrote: post #106
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't the law supposed to be blind, or do political groups have a "get out of jail free" card? Yes, core political speech is Constitutionally protected [1]. You can charge people being violent while protecting their rights to say stupid things. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite... Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

Free speech protection in American law is with its limits. Speech itself isn't protected if it is directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action. See Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Imminent lawless action would be an impossible standard, and if that's your standard, then accepting harsh KKK political speech should be within your realm. Maybe they step out of line sometimes, but they know how to play the Westboro Baptist game. There's so much hate speech that can't be obviously said to incite violence.

Also, at the heart of banning bad speech is the fear that your fellow countrymen are too weak and stupid to deal with political, racial, sexual, or just scientific thought in general, and you fear the democratic reigns in their hands.

Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists

#140

Post by cypherpunks01 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #26
cypherpunks01 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Them' meaning Dreamhost? Sorry to be pedantic but there are multiple subjects in the article/title and no other context.

The headline was edited from a "Dreamhost resists demands..." sort of construction.

Ah, gotcha, thanks.
Post reply on HN