The one quote provided is nothing near incitement violence, in the legal sense. I'm now in the icky position of defending Daily Sturmer because I believe in the First Amendment and this latest campaign against one web site feels so contrived and politically correct. Yes yes, I know that the First Amendment doesn't apply to Namecheap or godaddy or cloudflare. But this has gotten downright silly.
As another commenter noted, these large companies have no compunction hosting/registering domains for sites that actually do incite violence and actively ruin people's lives... like jihadist groups or ripoff report, a site that makes it an active business model to defame people online, destroy lives and careers, and then extort people to remove that content.
This whole daily sturmer campaign has gotten to the point of being nothing more than a way for companies to pretend like they care or want to prevent a type of speech they don't like, but in reality is picking on one site that is mild in comparison to the other things these companies tacitly approve of.
Edit to add a link that apropos: The Seductive Appeal of the "Nazi Exception" https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-t...
We're in such a state of things that people feel compelled to upfront state that while they don't support the thoughts of these sites, they support their right to free speech.
It used to be assumed that in supporting free speech one did not agree with the most vile of those expressions. Now we're compelled to say that up front lest someone conflate the two.
This re-interpretation of free speech is just as likely to come back to apply to the people now in favor of kerbing free speech.
One of the most obvious is religion and people holding views opposite to it. Or, what if you espouse Marxism. That could be incitement to violence, in this interpretation.
Today one groups is in control of what acceptable speech is. Tomorrow it will be someone else. And I will still be supporting free speech whoever is under attack by the contextual free speechers.
> This re-interpretation of
> free speech
About the link you posted in another comment pointing out that Cloudflare (and others) hosted ISIS material:
1) At the point they start removing those, they delve into a cat&mouse game that is both financially costly, as well as establishing a precedent in behaviour. It can be argued that that was reached now in regards to dailystormer, but not when considering the other point.
2) ISIS isn't being normalized within the states, and no one would ever believe that Cloudflare (or anyone else) supported the contents on those sites. Dailystormer both explicitly claimed that Cloudflare supported them, while the "alt-right" is being normalized by the POTUS. They exercised their right because they wanted (or rather their hand was forced) to make it explicit that their speech didn't mirror the site's.
There are two sides to every coin, and both sides are free speech.
I'll also add a link apropos of the topic, by the same author: "Speech Is Tyranny!" https://www.popehat.com/2009/07/01/speech-is-tyranny/
> like jihadist groups
If I was incharge of one of these companies, I have no choice but to 'virtue signal'. This would literally be my thought process, 'Oh shit google banned them, we don't want to be called out as Nazis lets write a blog post and ban them'. I don't want to blame that guy from cloudfare or this person because they literally have no choice.
I think this is only going to stop if "diverse group" of people come forward and oppose this visibly, which is borderline impossible.
This doesn't matter much, of course, because the amendment only applies to government shutting you up, not a private entity.
BUT, I hate how all of these bozos keep making the excuse that these websites wouldn't even be protected by 1st amendment so they can be banned from the internet. This article does this too. It is annoying since this basic premise itself is wrong.
Of course, Namecheap can probably choose their customers however they like according to their own TOS. But don't delete someone off the Internet who is saying things you don't like and spend the whole post patting yourself on the back for following principles of free speech.
I think it's pretty simple -- if you don't believe that Nazis should be able to voice their vile and disgusting opinions openly, you don't believe in free speech. If you don't believe that Nazis should get to organize a nonviolent protest, then you don't believe in freedom of assembly.
The Washington Post featured an article 'Who are the antifa'  by Mark Bray who is the author of "The Anti-Fascist Handbook" which explained, "Antifascists argue that after the horrors of chattel slavery and the Holocaust, physical violence against white supremacists is both ethically justifiable and strategically effective."
Of course we see how effective it is, because defending the bedrock principles of freedom of speech and assembly when the speakers are Nazis now apparently puts you at risk of being labeled a Nazi sympathizer / white supremacist / racist yourself.
I'm not sure exactly when it became impossible to have an adult conversation on the matter. When did it become impossible to understand that a protester can represent abhorrent viewpoints without it being OK to throw bags of urine and paint at them? That a protest can turn violent and even deadly without being able to then condemn every single protester that was present? And that we should not be celebrating, but in fact be very worried if not outraged, that private parties who have gained superuser access to parts of the internet through their course of business are now leveraging that power to police content they find personally offensive, or which they takedown for PR reasons to appeal to a populist mob.
 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/...
"Why are we against the proposed SOPA legislation? It’s very simple; at Namecheap, we believe in internet freedom.
When you register a domain name, you can do anything you wish with it within the confines of the law."
You find how much you believe in your principles, when they lead to outcomes you don't like. Given their actions now, namecheap's SOPA opposition now sounds like just a cheap publicity trick they did to distinguish themselves from GoDaddy.
The Neo-Nazis are not that upset by this. They want to use the same tools to boycott the Zionist and Jews. It's actually one of the many things the Alt-Left and the Alt-Right agree on.
In addition we're making them into martyrs. Banning and suppression was counter productive on the original Nazis and it is counter productive here.
This should be we'll know by those who read civics. It is even codified in the book Rules For Radicals by Saul Alinsky. It makes me wonder what books Antifa are reading as they are doing all of the wrong things.
I get that it feels like we're (non nazis) are winning but we're not and this is isn't helping.
I'm halfway through the prologue and I have to say, this is very insightful and relevant to today for having been written in 1971. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
To me, out of context, that reads as anti- White men, not anti-Semitic. Or at least ambiguous. Certainly not an outright endorsement as such.
I haven't read the material, and I'm sure it's as hateful as they say. But as their entire argument is predicated on how beyond the pale that statement is, and if "the site spends considerable effort demonizing Asians, Blacks, Mexicans, etc" - they could probably have found a better example to make their point.
If the site is as bad as they say they should have picked a better quote than that obviously ironic one...
If IANA decide that .com address should not be used for sites like this, then at least it would be their decision to make. They also already thought about how to handle this type of questions, and drawn the lines where the consensus says they should be. If people want to change them, the process to do so is likely well documented.
> cable access channels. I'd
> think the same reasoning
These companies are only banning this one domain because it's bad publicity right now if they don't.
These hosts should kick all of the illegal and immoral sites off or none of them.
A decentralized web is the next game changer that has been brewing for a few years, and now is becoming ready for prime time. Its going to represent a seismic shift in the next few years...poor Zuckerberg, et al.
There are neo-nazi shows on cable access channels, so I'd think the same legal reasoning applies to the internet.
I am an Indian and every single "crossover" indian youtube video is filled with "Designated Shitting streets " comments. I really don't give a shit( pardon the pun) about those comments. Do majority of "Asians, Blacks, Mexicans" in America want this kind of censorship on their behalf ? Really curious.
Also are "Asians, Blacks, Mexicans" only three groups that those rules apply to? Noone else has a 'history of discrimination'?
But I guess you can see that how vague and meaningless defintion you have come up with to decide which cites deserve to be censored.
I have a feeling all these people are just following a trend, there is no solid principle, any rhyme or reason to what they are doing. Its literally this- 'oh google banned site X, we don't want to get called out, lets ban it too'
In the UK, Asian (or South Asian) often means Indian.