

Website pulled on US church that wants to burn Korans [by Rackspace] - carbocation
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iCOmq6xX87ErMuEs3Or3tgqY5vDA

======
fbnt
I don't get all the fuss here: The site was against their TOS and Rackspace
had to pull it off.

 _You may not publish, transmit or store on or via the Rackspace Cloud's
network and equipment any content or links to any content that the Rackspace
Cloud reasonably believes:

\- Constitutes, depicts, fosters, promotes or relates in any manner to child
pornography, bestiality, or non-consensual sex acts;

\- is excessively violent, incites violence, threatens violence or contains
harassing content or hate speech;

\- is unfair or deceptive under the consumer protection laws of any
jurisdiction, including chain letters and pyramid schemes;

\- is defamatory or violates a person's privacy;

\- creates a risk to a person's safety or health, creates a risk to public
safety or health, compromises national security or interferes with a
investigation by law enforcement;

\- improperly exposes trade secrets or other confidential or proprietary
information of another person; \- is intended to assist others in defeating
technical copyright protections;

\- infringes on another person's copyright, trade or service mark, patent or
other property right;

\- promotes illegal drugs, violates export control laws, relates to illegal
gambling or illegal arms trafficking;

\- is otherwise illegal or solicits conduct that is illegal under laws
applicable to you or to the Rackspace Cloud;

\- is otherwise malicious, fraudulent or may result in retaliation against the
Rackspace Cloud by offended viewers.

Content "published or transmitted" via the Rackspace Cloud's network or
equipment includes Web content, email, bulletin board postings, chat and any
other type of posting or transmission that relies on the Internet._

I think that site was in clear contradiction with point no. 2

~~~
gojomo
The problem is that point is inherently subjective and gives a veto to the
least-rational, most-emotional people. Allegations that certain speech is
'harassing' or 'hate speech' can be made strategically to censor disfavored
speech. Such policies can even provide an incentive _for_ violence, as a means
of proving certain speech should be squelched. ("You said something that made
me throw this rock, so you should shut up. And I'll keep throwing rocks until
I've shown exactly how dangerous your speech is.")

Unless speech contains a credible threat of violence, speech is not itself
'violent'. No reasonable, law-abiding person should see/hear any speech and be
thrown into a violent rage. (If they do, they're the person breaching
civilized norms deserving punishment -- not the original speaker.)

I understand the business reasons for caving to any sufficiently-large angry
mob with grievances. But if more businesses said they didn't censor otherwise
legal speech because of emotion of the part of third parties, as a matter of
non-discriminatory policy, then it'd be easier for all similar businesses to
adhere to the same principle.

~~~
zeteo
"I understand the business reasons for caving to any sufficiently-large angry
mob with grievances"

Yup. A DDoS attack was almost certainly going their way, and perhaps physical
threats as well.

~~~
MichaelSalib
Is there any evidence to support this contention? Or is this complete
speculation based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever?

~~~
drusenko
Agreed. DDoS attacks (in our experience) do not originate from the religious
right.

------
subway
Keep in mind that this likely isn't just a political move, but a strategic
move to prevent impact to other customers. This sort of site will commonly
draw attacks that have a major negative impact on the hosting provider, while
generating minimal revenue for the hosting provider. This sort of customer is
likely to cost a hosting company money rather than make them money.

------
_delirium
That AUP sounds kind of ridiculous. I don't plan to burn any Korans, but I
don't want my hosting provider to decide what content of mine might offend its
personal sensibilities, either. One of many reasons to use
<https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/> imo.

~~~
scott_s
When your obvious hate speech has been denounced by both the Commander of US
Forces in Afghanistan and the President of the United States as dangerous to
troops and civilians overseas, I sympathize that someone might say "I want no
part of this. I'm out."

I think saying this offends their "personal sensibilities" is understating the
circumstance. It's now an international issue. They have a right to say it and
a right to do it, and other people have an equal right to disassociate
themselves from it.

~~~
hugh4life
"It's now an international issue."

I like Petraeus, but he holds a lot of the responsibility for this getting out
of hand. He should have publicly called the guy a meaningless nut who
shouldn't be paid attention to, and then privately called him up and kindly
told him to knock it off... I'm getting tired of the media sensation around
this idiot and the world leaders who are preening over it.

~~~
prawn
I wonder if he (and others) should have completely ignored the issue. Clinton,
for example, made a couple of mentions of it in recent speeches, also saying
that she wished it weren't in the media, but it were her mentions of it
driving the media stories. Take away those things and it starves the media
fire of fuel.

And, of course, the media themselves aren't going to stop publicising it
because issues like these (the mosque in Manhattan, blah blah blah) are
moneymakers and talking points. You have to wonder if enraged protesters
abroad would even know about this nut-job "pastor" of "world outreach"
(laughable!) if he had been more or less ignored from the beginning.

------
BigZaphod
My immediate response was: Ha! Good!

..but that's the problem with all these sorts of debates, isn't it? Everyone
is acting on their first, almost instinctual response and never stopping to
think beyond their own selfish beliefs and desires. Somehow that seems ironic.

------
poet
Rackspace is within their rights as a private entity to make this decision,
but I'm also within my rights as a consumer never to purchase hosting from
them again.

------
roboneal
On an Internet in which I can easily watch the video of Daniel Pearl's
beheading or any number of other beheadings, stonings, or floggings in the
name of Islam - I have a slightly different threshold for what constitutes
actual "hate speech".

------
justinchen
I agree with the concern about Rackspace pulling down sites, but I can't help
but be pleased with their decision on this one.

~~~
sigzero
So free speech means nothing to you apparently. It is in hard issues like this
that free speech must remain free or it is an illusion. I do not agree with
what the church is doing either but refusing them free speech is a dangerous
precedence to be saying "good" to.

~~~
generalk
When Americans say "free speech" we usually are referencing the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution, which holds that the federal (and
as of Gitlow v. New York, state and local) government cannot make a law
prohibiting the free exercise of speech.

1\. If you're making reference to the First Amendment, Rackspace cannot offend
that. They're a corporation, not a government.

2\. Even if you're not, why should Rackspace be forced to host someone's
content that violates their AUP (and that they probably find offensive
themselves?) If you don't like it, don't purchase their services.

------
danilocampos
It's not Rackspace's job to preserve the freedom of speech – that role belongs
to congress.

The business relationship is a two way street. Fortunately for Rackspace,
they're in a position where they can pick their customers.

Regardless of how you feel about burning Qurans, Rackspace has the right to
recognize that one of their hosting customers is doing stupid things as a
result of religion – and to decide they want no part of it. For simple
liability reasons alone this may be a good idea – who knows what violence this
idiocy will inspire.

If I were running a hosting company, I'd be wary of permitting religious
content of _any_ sort, much less the "my religion is better than your religion
and you should get out of my country/planet" sort.

~~~
credo
imo the pastor is clearly wrong in what he is doing and he is unnecessarily
insulting and provoking millions of people.

That said, I'm not very comfortable with Rackspace making arbitrary decisions
on what speech is permitted and what is not permitted.If I were to host a
political blog, I wouldn't want to use a hosting company that can decide to
take down the blog because they don't like the editorial policy.

~~~
danilocampos
That's the beauty of life in a free society.

Jackass pastor gets to say and do stupid things.

Rackspace gets to say "do it on your own box."

You get to say, "meh, kind of lame, Rackspace."

And life goes on.

And all I'm saying is that, under this circumstance, Rackspace gets the same
freedom you and the pastor have, and this is as it should be.

~~~
jacoblyles
I just make a mental note "never use Rackspace for anything". Problem solved.

~~~
michaelhalligan
I agree with this one, but that's just because they're an overpriced,
incompetent hosting company.

------
calebgilbert
This is the second article in a week and a half that I've read about rackspace
yanking a site. The other instance was even more ridiculous that this one...

Here's the link: Rely your web startup on Rackspace Cloud? Think again.
[http://bencheng.net/rely-your-web-startup-on-rackspace-
cloud...](http://bencheng.net/rely-your-web-startup-on-rackspace-cloud-thin)

I'm actually a current Rackspace Cloud customer, but this type of news makes
me reconsider whether I want to be.

~~~
nkassis
I don't think any other large provider would do any better in this case. You
agree to their terms of service and hate speech is forbidden by those terms.
If you aren't hosting things which is hate speech (my opinion is that the
church's website did include things which in my view fall under hate speech)
then this news shouldn't bother you at all.

I know it's all subjective and Rackspace basically can choose to label
anything hate speech. My point is that all providers have this liberty, not
just Rackspace.

~~~
jonah
"I know it's all subjective and Rackspace basically can choose to label
anything hate speech."

That's a key issue. Applying their AUP consistently whether they personally
agree or disagree with the content in question. (Although as a private entity
they do have discretion.)

------
acabal
Good on Rackspace. Free speech doesn't mean the freedom to say whatever you
want on someone else's private infrastructure. You are free to burn books,
spout hate speech, or do whatever other ridiculous stuff, but you're _not
entitled_ to use somebody else's private communication medium to do so.

Rackspace has spent millions in establishing a private infrastructure on which
to conduct their private business--hosting web sites. Your right to free
speech is not the same as Rackspace's right to do whatever they like on the
infrastructure they wholly own.

If you want to make a website about burning Korans or whatever other hateful
propaganda, purchase your own server, install it in your own datacenter, and
pay for your own uplink. Then you'll be free to do whatever you want on your
own servers. _That's_ freedom of speech.

Edit: And if you don't like that Rackspace is pulling sites for whatever
reason, then you too are free to host your own server in your own datacenter,
maybe even on land you yourself have purchased. Or hell, get another host that
explicitly allows that kind of stuff. Then you won't be constrained by what is
in truth a business relationship, not an infringement on any constitutional
right.

------
Osiris
Regarding the actual content of the offensive material on the site, I'm always
surprised at how many "Christians" don't follow the basic tenets of the
religion. The entire New Testament teaches tolerance and love, even for one's
enemies. It's not even subtle about it. Many of the parables and scriptures
are explicit about the "commandment" (i.e., requirement from God) to "love thy
neighbor" and "turn the other cheek".

From what I've read, the Qu'ran teaches very similar principles, including the
commandment "Thou shalt not kill."

Basically what we're seeing are two religious groups fighting against one
another while clearly ignoring their own religious principals.

 _Disclosure: I'm a practicing Christian in the LDS church_

~~~
roboneal
Plenty of English translations available online.

The tone is hardly New Testament - turn the other cheek fare:

Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and
thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks
until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn
renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case)
take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Qur'an (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the
hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the
destination."

~~~
hugh3
Exactly. And while the Bible has a huge range of tone and message, having been
compiled from a bunch of books written over a couple of thousand years by
hundreds of authors, the Koran was all written by one dude over the space of a
few years, so it's a bit more consistent from page to page.

It would be interesting to imagine that you're a Martian given copies of these
two religious books for the first time divorced from any historical context
and asked to determine which one has the nicer message. The Bible does have a
bunch of nasty stuff towards the beginning, but turns into a feel-good hippie
tract about love being nice towards the end. The Koran, on the other hand,
seems to have an awful lot more about being a dick to the unbeliever. Still, I
don't claim to have read either all the way through.

~~~
oiuygtfrtghyju
>but turns into a feel-good hippie tract about love being nice towards the end

Only in the Sequel, and sequels are never as good as the original (except the
Godfather).

Nice to know that their God speaks C16 English as well.

------
nickdunkman
Given that it actually violates the policy mentioned, Rackspace absolutely has
the right to do this, and I don't hold it against them. They did what they
thought was right for this situation. Unfortunately it won't have any effect
on the Koran burning event.

Personally this makes me more likely to purchase hosting from them (unless I
wanted to make something offensive like this).

Counting the minutes until we hear a politician claim that this violates first
amendment rights ...

~~~
nkassis
Exactly, they agreed to Rackspace's conditions when they purchased hosting
from them. First amendments have nothing do do with this considering it's not
the government which is censoring here but the company providing the service.
The only thing the church can argue is that it's a breach of contract.

First amendment free speech rights applies to government censorship not to
corporation's censoring things done with their services.

------
hugh4life
What if media had ignored Terry Jones?

[http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/os-mike-
thomas-q...](http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/os-mike-thomas-quran-
burn-090910-20100908,0,5042689.column)

~~~
desigooner
well, in that case, they wouldn't have sold the extra copies, gotten extra
coverage and extra revenue in ads and so on .. media is hardly idealistic
these days .. it's all about who breaks the story first and who uses it to
increase their visiblity + popularity + revenue

------
SageRaven
Is just it me or does anyone else see parallels with this and the 1970's
Skokie, IL Nazi parade incident? Fanatics fan the flames of hate, passion, and
free speech to make a media circus of the whole debate.

~~~
Vivtek
I hate Illinois Nazis.

~~~
jacquesm
Floors accelerator.

------
johngalt
My initial response is "great", but it makes me wonder about other situations.

What if a hosting provider refused to serve another group based on a more
popular viewpoint? Would there still be support for rackspace if they refused
service to planned parenthood? Many organizations "incite" the devout of
various religions.

~~~
smallblacksun
The response on this thread shows just how hypocritical people are. If they
had yanked a Planned Parenthood site (there have been numerous cases of
violence regarding abortion), or a site promoting being gay (there are plenty
of examples of violence against gays), HN would be condemning them. But
because they are yanking a site that people on HN disagree with, not a peep.
Yes, what they did was perfectly legal. That does not make it right.

------
jbail
This does nothing except give more free publicity to the Koran burners.
They'll just find another company to host their site, which will have even
more traffic now.

I know we probably can't, but could we just ignore them, hope they get bored
when no one pays attention to them and go away?

~~~
panacea
My thoughts exactly.

Can't we simply ignore a bunch of nuts in a small town in Florida who want to
start a fire in their backyard?

It's the same way I feel about terrorism. Can't we just accept the unfortunate
loss of life that occurs when some nutter/group of nutters decide to murder
people, instead of, you know, being terrorized?

~~~
ericb
> Can't we simply ignore a bunch of nuts in a small town in Florida who want
> to start a fire in their backyard?

Seriously. We're giving them what they want by paying attention. Do we hear
about every KKK barbecue? Do we need to? Aren't we better off if we don't
provide free publicity?

Right now some angsty teenager is doodling Muhammad on his notebook, and
unless someone throws gas on the fire by making it a news story, it will
remain a non-event. There is a cause and effect with stories like these--the
media _create_ the news, like the ground zero mosque story.

------
numeromancer
If you owned a store, and someone, say a regular customer, came into your
store and started insulting thuggish-looking passers-by from inside your
store, would you kick them out?

I know this is different. This is like a store where you pay to yell at people
from inside, I guess. But still, you own it, you have the right to draw the
line.

That said, if Rackspace had decided to make this their fight, I would hold
them in high regard. There is far too much fear of "Muslim outrage", and too
many in the press have shown a lot of cowardice.

This preacher is an irrational man, but progress depends on the irrational
man. G'Shaw!

------
keithwarren
One sure fire way to make a backwoods idiot look semi-sane is to go and pull
something like this. One of the great pillars of the internet is free speech
and Rackspace can hide behind an AUP all day but in the end they have decided
to move into the realm of politics with this move. Sad.

For the record, I am pissed that some church wants to go off an incite Muslims
in this way but this is America and while I will shout at the top of my lungs
'this is stupid' I will also defend to the cost of life and limb their right
to do it.

------
mminolt
The whole Koran burning business reaks of violence and provocation. Let's take
the high road and give the terrorists a better example than that.

I am sure Rackspace thought long and hard before doing so. They may have
wanted to pull the site out of ideological conviction but I am sure they did
once they were convinced they were legally alllowed to do so.

Freedom of speech is only good as long as it doesn't turn into a violent
provocation match in my opinion.

------
jws
_Jones and his 50-strong congregation…_ – an interesting way to describe the
lingering half of the congregation which hasn't abandoned him in the past 12
months.

------
lkrubner
I find it hard to believe that the Commander of US Forces in Afghanistan and
the President of the United States would both criticize this church in public,
yet neither would think to pick up a phone and call Rackspace. I am assuming
that a year or 2 from now we will learn that Rackspace did receive a call from
some branch of government. I can believe that the call was perhaps informal in
nature. Perhaps an old friend, now in government, called an old friend who
works at Rackspace. Perhaps they had a friendly chat. I'm suddenly curious if
anyone in Rackspace management spent any time in the military. If so, it
becomes easy to imagine how such informal contacts might be made.

And, then, I wonder if any part of the Federal government is a customer of
Rackspace?

I say all this simply because it seems unlikely that the the Commander of US
Forces in Afghanistan and the President of the United States would both focus
their attention on this church, and describe their planned event as being a
danger to the troops, and yet they didn't think to call Rackspace? Shutting
down the website seems like an obvious pressure point, though, of course, not
an especially powerful one.

~~~
gojomo
Rackspace is headquartered in San Antonio, 'Military City USA'.

But for now this takedown will only give the church more attention -- it's the
news hook for another cycle of coverage. So I think this is a matter of
Rackspace covering their own ass, not doing a favor for anyone who truly
wanted to squelch the church -- because the suspension doesn't even
effectively serve that purpose.

------
16s
I can recommend nearlyfreespeech.net for hosting. They allow any legal
material to be posted. The one downside is it's Unix with a ssh, and there is
no hand holding. But if you have the know-how, great service!

------
grandalf
Why is burning Qurans offensive? I could see it being offensive if done in
someone else's yard, but as a symbolic act of free speech it's no different
than flag burning, which I also support.

~~~
earl
Because the redneck trash doing this would throw a temper tantrum if someone
did it to a bible. It should be permitted, but come on -- we're adults here.
This is nothing more than a giant, "Fuck you" to muslims.

For the record, I don't find burning any books or the flag to be offensive --
I just don't get wrapped up in silly symbols.

~~~
tomjen3
The problem with burning bibles is that it would get you marked as a supporter
of Islam.

What do you burn when you hate both Islam and Christianity?

~~~
ComputerGuru
To the contrary - in Islam the Bible is also a Holy Book, and Jesus is also
upheld and respected as a prophet, and given the same due respect as Prophet
Muhammad.

~~~
smallblacksun
No, he is not given the same respect as Muhammad. If he were, Muslims would be
grossly offended by the images of Jesus in every church and Christian store in
the world, like they are when images of Muhammad are drawn.

~~~
DJN
Care to cite your sources on that one?

~~~
smallblacksun
Source on what? I made 3 claims: 1\. Muslims are offended by images of
Mohammad. Do you really need a source for this? 2\. There are images of Jesus
in churches and Christian stores. Again, do you rally need a source for this?
3\. Muslims are not offended by those images of Jesus. If you are claiming
that they are offended by them, then the burden of providing sources is on
you.

------
hnal943
I wonder how many people cheering this are in favor of net neutrality.

~~~
jat850
The two topics are wholly unrelated. Net neutrality relates to ISPs and their
customers rights to access any data they please, not the choice of a hosting
company to accept or reject content.

------
korch
Well I guess I won't be doing anymore business with Rackspace, since their
idiot executives who cleared this decision clearly do not respect the rights
given by the American constitution, nor understand the point of net
neutrality, nor any of the rights they themselves benefit from as a common
carrier. _It's tragic that the FCC does not have the authority nor the clear
legislative framework to prosecute violations of net neutrality._

This is absolutely outrageous coming from one of the largest web hosting
providers in the world. They are supposed to lead by example here. Rackspace
has no business censoring any of their customers content just because the
don't like what it says, and are scared others won't like it. And who the fuck
cares about their TOS/AUS—more than half of it goes well outside the
boundaries of what any court would allow to be legally binding. If I put in my
TOS that "I can revoke your account anytime because I don't like you", I
cannot legally get away with it. At least in circumstances and for business
contracts that matter—perhaps not web hosting.

No laws were broken. No law enforcement or court orders were submitted
requesting the site be taken offline. _Rackspace pulled the plug just because
they didn't like their customer's content and feared backlash by association._

The entire reason this matters is because it leads to a slippery slope that
becomes the exact opposite of the Constitutional principles upon which America
was founded. Where does the slippery slope stop? Can the electric company shut
off this pastor's account because they don't want to be known as "his
electricity provider"? Can his bank cancel his home loan too? Why stop
there—can every entity he does business with in the public market do likewise,
and turn this man into a true outcast and force him to live off the grid? Is
that what the American constitution says can happen with freedom of speech?
No, it doesn't.

 _First they came for the religious holy book burners, next they came for...,
then they came for me_ etc, etc.

So the line must be drawn somewhere, and online public speech is a pretty
damned good and early enough spot to draw it.

------
InclinedPlane
I think it's a horrible idea to burn Korans, but this is certainly not the
answer. This is effectively just another form of violence, that's not the way
to elevate a debate.

~~~
maxharris
What is your definition of violence?

My dictionary (Dictionary.app) says "behavior involving physical force
intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." Specifically, how is
Rackspace using physical force against anyone?

~~~
InclinedPlane
Perhaps you should consult the additional definitions of violence:
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence>

In this case Rackspace's cessation of hosting services very much seems to be
an injury against this church, even if it is not an injury to any person's
physical bodies.

~~~
maxharris
OK.

But all I'm concerned with here is whether or not [persons at] Rackspace
violated the rights of the [members of the] church. To determine this, we need
to establish if one party initiated force or fraud against another, and if so,
which one did so first.

I don't think anyone's rights were violated here.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Nobody's rights were violated, that's irrelevant. I'm just saying I'm not so
sure this was a good idea.

Acting within the law is not synonymous with doing the right thing.

~~~
maxharris
> Nobody's rights were violated, that's irrelevant.

It is relevant because you used the word "violence", which implies a violation
of rights in the context we are talking about.

> Acting within the law is not synonymous with doing the right thing.

True.

