
“We shut down Richard Spencer's Altright website.” - d9h549f34w6
https://twitter.com/KristenClarkeJD/status/992134651371192320
======
mkempe
Shutting down other people's websites is the complete opposite of freedom of
speech. When their free speech is abridged on their own websites, not just
shadow-banned in the major social networks, people may end up deciding that
their only option left is to resort to force against those they perceive as
the abridgers.

This will not end well.

~~~
orf
They should go find a web host that is supportive of their message. Freedom of
speech does not mean every platform has to give you a soap box, quite the
opposite.

All in all its got nothing to do with freedom of speech.

~~~
zzzcpan
It has everything to do with the freedom of speech, it's the opposite of it,
it's called self-censorship.

~~~
travmatt
You’re proposing that my having the freedom to not be forced to spread another
persons message is actually me being censored?

That seems like a pretty convoluted way to say “I want to force this company
to continue hosting this site despite their objections”.

------
DanAndersen
Some thoughts:

1: The WHOIS entry (
[https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=altright.com](https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=altright.com)
) seems strange to me:

>This domain name has been suspended due to invalid Whois information.

Is this a normal WHOIS message for sites that get shut down for ToS violations
of the sort being described in the Twitter link? Does anyone know if the WHOIS
data for the site was actually invalid? Regardless, that rubs me the wrong way
as sounding like finding a technicality to shut it down. I wish they'd be more
open about what they're doing.

2: Sites like this have had to change webhosts before, that's nothing new.
Politically extreme content has always had issues with that (to be honest I'm
wondering what Spencer was thinking going with GoDaddy rather than one of the
hosting services out there that tends to be more resistant to outside
pressure). The real question is what is going to happen to the domain name
itself, if these people are going to be able to set up shop again with a
different registrar. "Host it on your own server" is different from "start
your own domain registrar company" as excuses for censorship, no matter how
legitimate it feels.

3: No matter the content, we should be treating these events as canaries in
the coal mine. The tech world has rightfully focused on countering censorious
efforts by governments, but that's not the only source of censorship.
Censorship doesn't just happen by governments; it can be done by private
entities as well in the form of 'deplatforming.' This tactic has been proven
to be effective, and there will be very little outcry because -- well, look at
who's getting shut down. But it's not going to stop there.

I'm a free speech absolutist who thinks it's a culture and not just an 18th-
century legal document. Censorship in the 21st century isn't going to look
like what it looked like in the 20th century; it will be a new form that is
harder to counter, harder to argue against with only outdated definitions as
ammunition. I hope that in the future, the tech world finds ways to make
"deplatform-resistant" content feasible at all layers of the stack.

~~~
mkempe
I'm a radical in that sense too, and subscribe to the principle attributed to
Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say -- and will defend to the death your
right to say it."

------
fluxsauce
Freedom of speech does not give the freedom to violate terms of service. The
first paragraph of the complaint states that the site was not compliant and
apparently GoDaddy agreed.

~~~
estro
Sure, this argument may be valid here. At what point do we explicitly allow a
website's ToS to supersede the Constitution though? Denial of rights is a
single-edged sword easily flipped.

~~~
travmatt
This is a nonsensical argument- the first amendment doesn’t apply to private
corporations, unless your argument is that any random internet company is
literally the United States government.

~~~
estro
Can you provide something to support your claim? Why would a private
corporation not be subject to Constitutional law?

~~~
travmatt
“”” 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. “””

------
throwaway_98554
When exactly are people going to see that this isn't stopping with the Daily
Stormer?

All those tech companies that spent years virtue signaling about a free and
open web LIED.

