

Rackspace Shuts Down Koran-Burning Web Site - 1SockChuck
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/09/09/rackspace-shuts-down-koran-burning-web-site/

======
gwright
I'm usually impressed by the discussion on Hacker News but the amount of
ignorance about the nature of the 1st Amendment and the difference between
government and private actions in this discussion is disheartening.

The US 1st Amendment is a restriction on government actions not a restriction
on private actions or private contracts. There may be other legal reasons why
private actions might be controlled or regulated but please don't point to the
1st Amendment in order to justify that control.

Finally, where do people get the idea that the concept of 'free speech'
includes the notion that other people, companies, or the government are
_required_ to support and assist you in communicating your message? The
freedom to 'speak' without government coercion is not a guarantee that your
speech won't be met with ridicule, criticism, rejection, or counterargument
and appeals to your 'free speech' rights being violated when that happens is
absurd.

------
haseman
While I like this in theory (because burning the Koran en mass is a stupid
idea) I'm troubled by it in practice. Does this mean that if I espouse on an
idea that Rackspace doesn't like they'll pull my service? Obviously this has
nothing to do with the 1st amendment... Rackspace may terminate my use of
their property by grounds in the contract I've signed with them. I'm not sure,
however, I like the idea of a hosting company policing the ideas that are
posted on their servers.

~~~
TWAndrews
It sounds like it, assuming the way your idea is espoused violates TOS that
you agreed to.

~~~
haseman
Fair point, I guess if a movement to burn the Koran "...contains harassing
content or hate speech" I have to wonder what other ideas and writings, in
Rackspace's considered opinion, might violate that clause in their TOS? As
this isn't a legal or constitutional issue, one presumes they aren't using the
legal tests for hate speech/hate crimes. Is this a 'I'll know it when i see
it' sorta test?

------
TWAndrews
People who think this is a free speech issue wrt Rackspace are confused about
how the first amendment works. The right to free speech, is not the right to a
platform from which to speak. This was the law-of-the land before the internet
even existed.

Back before Craigslist killed classified, news papers absolutely had terms
which specified which content they would or wouldn't run.

~~~
jgranby
The "constitutional" aspect (if there is one) isn't the issue, though. The
issue is whether I, you, or anyone else, wants a web host that takes down web
sites it disapproves of. A web host can take down websites for misusing
apostrophes, if it is entitled to by contract (if there's a broadly drafted
term in the contract, this might even be possible in the real world, not just
hypothetically). But would you want to do business with them?

------
boltofblue
I understand why

.... except..... there are about a billion images, jokes, articles, sites
degrading Jesus Christ and advocating destroying Christianity

------
greenlblue
Rackspace did the right thing. This is not a free speech issue since there are
more articulate ways of expressing your dislike of some belief system without
desecrating objects that a certain group considers valuable.

~~~
tptacek
No, it's not a "free speech issue" because you have no right under the
Constitution to post whatever you'd like on Rackspace's private property, and
the contract you enter into to post anything there specifically enjoins you
from posting "harassing" or "hate" speech.

Sorry to be pedantic, but people have weird ideas about what the 1st Amendment
actually means. "Congress shall make no law" does not mean "Rackspace shall
make no rule".

~~~
rbanffy
In other words, you have no free speech on the internet because all the
routers, wires, servers, links, modems are the property of their owners and
they are free to censor whatever you post as long as they have sufficiently
ambiguous clauses on their contracts that may or may not involve you as a
part.

How far can you bend your constitution before it breaks?

~~~
NateLawson
You have a good point that a private monopoly can ultimately limit public
rights like free speech. If there's no alternative provider that is willing to
host hate speech, you can't broadcast it in that form.

I can think of three ways to provide for that:

1\. Public servers, possibly sponsored by the govt

2\. Regulation of Internet access run by private companies

3\. Waiting for private competition to create such a space

The first one worked well in the early days of the Internet. There were lots
of rules against commercial use of publicly-funded computers but little
content regulation. Despite what some may think about the govt, it has lost
most times it has attempted to limit free speech.

Regulation sort of works for railroads and telecom lines. Bell gets a monopoly
on wiring but they have to provide access to disabled people, can't do
discriminatory pricing, etc.

The last one is least likely to succeed. I don't know of any private US
company that advertises themselves as "no takedown unless required by court
order". It seems there is little profit advantage in marginalized speech
compared to the cost of defending against attacks on it.

While it's good to see Ipredator and BayImg providing services with this kind
of guarantee, the fact that such an effort only seems possible in Sweden
should give us pause.

~~~
devicenull
<https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/> is one I can think of.

------
subpixel
Well, good.

