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

31–40 of 153 posts

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

#31

Post by ubertaco »

angerbot wrote: post #11
mankash666 wrote: post #4

This is the proper thing to do for DreamHost. 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. If they indulge in illegal activities, alerting law enforcement is the recommended course of action, just li…

Google and Go-Daddy also have a constitutional right not to associate or do business with the alt-right (or really, anyone else they disagree with). You are protected from the government restricting your speech, no one else has any obligation to put up with you.

Transplanted example of this same line of reasoning:

JimBob's Cake Bakery also has a constitutional right not to do business with same-sex couples (or really, anyone else they disagree with). You are protected from the government restricting your speech, no one else has any obligation to put up with you.

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

#32

Post by marricks »

wildmusings wrote: post #13

They're seeking the identities of the rioters on January 20th. Over 200 people were arrested but many more have yet to face the consequences for what they did.

So there's a million or so people that visited that website and they want to unmask all those people to attempt to find 200 alleged rioters?

That sure sounds like an overreaching fishing expedition.

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

#33

Post by borisj »

nostromo wrote: post #18
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…

I wonder where we draw the line, particularly with ubiquitous companies like Google, Facebook, and ISPs. Would you be ok if Comcast decided to disallow you from accessing sites they determine are offensive? Or filesharing? Or porn? Even if it is their right to do so, it'd make me uncomfortable.

No, but it's not a constitutional issue. Likewise, you can host your alt-right views on the internet, but you don't have a right to a domain name and third-party hosting.

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

#34

Post by mankash666 »

whateveracct wrote: post #7
mankash666 wrote: post #4

This is the proper thing to do for DreamHost. 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. If they indulge in illegal activities, alerting law enforcement is the recommended course of action, just li…

> 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…

No it's not legal. Additionally, is against net neutrality. Do you believe in net neutrality?

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

#35

Post by EStudley »

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

The reason being sexual orientation is a protected class. "Belief in white supremacy" is not.

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

#36

Post by AaronFriel »

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

You're right! Which is why such a case is going to the United States Supreme Court, because it's not a settled question.

But let's say, refusing to bake a cake for a black couple?

There exist groups in the United States we consider protected classes, and the state or federal government passes laws to protect these classes, or court precedent protects them from discrimination.

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

#37

Post by EStudley »

ubertaco wrote: post #31
angerbot wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google and Go-Daddy also have a constitutional right not to associate or do business with the alt-right (or really, anyone else they disagree with). You are protected from the government restricting your speech, no one else has any obligation to put up with you.

Transplanted example of this same line of reasoning: JimBob's Cake Bakery also has a constitutional right not to do business with same-sex couples (or really, anyone else they disagree with). You are protected from the government restricting your speech, no one else has any obligation to put up with you.

That's incorrect. Sexual orientation is a federally protected class. Belief in white supremacy is not.

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

#38

Post by [deleted] »

ubertaco wrote: post #31
angerbot wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google and Go-Daddy also have a constitutional right not to associate or do business with the alt-right (or really, anyone else they disagree with). You are protected from the government restricting your speech, no one else has any obligation to put up with you.

Transplanted example of this same line of reasoning: JimBob's Cake Bakery also has a constitutional right not to do business with same-sex couples (or really, anyone else they disagree with). You are protected from the government restricting your speech, no one else has any obligation to put up with you.

[deleted]

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

#39

Post by ebfd »

whateveracct wrote: post #7
mankash666 wrote: post #4

This is the proper thing to do for DreamHost. 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. If they indulge in illegal activities, alerting law enforcement is the recommended course of action, just li…

> 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…

Doesn't it have a disparate impact on race?

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

#40

Post by mankash666 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #29
nostromo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder where we draw the line, particularly with ubiquitous companies like Google, Facebook, and ISPs. Would you be ok if Comcast decided to disallow you from accessing sites they determine are offensive? Or filesharing? Or porn? Even if it is their right to do so, it'd make me uncomfortable.

"No Nazis" is a perfectly fine side to draw the line on, in my book.

Yes - a moral line. However, censoring speech, however vile the said speech is, is illegal and not compliant with net neutrality
Post reply on HN