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
Point 2 is more or less what the courts use to decide whether the government can ban some certain speech. I read that as saying that you cannot encourage someone to commit an act of violence. The fact that If someone else gets their panties in a bunch over what I say and wants to be violent towards me, that is not inciting violence.
That is, a website encouraging people to murder abortion providers would be prohibited, but no reasonable person would consider the church's actions in the same category.
Does Rackspace have the right to pull the plug on anyone they want? I don't know -- that's a contractual issue. It looks like the last point does give them that right. I know I will never consider Rackspace for hosting any news or political website. Is supporting CA prop 19 in violation of their AUP? I don't know. It seems to depend on whether enough people get worked up about it. Would Rackspace have pulled the plug on Craigslist when state AGs start calling them sex traffickers?
Rackspace is now unreliable to anyone who can ever anticipate any controversy.
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.
> 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;
I'd say this criterion is clearly met in this case. When you have a general, secretary of state, and President of the United States all saying that this would cause national security issues, and put American troops in more danger, I think it's safe to say that Rackspace isn't really making a subjective decision any more.
So to you and everyone else who seems to be saying "Oh no, what if they stop hosting my site!?!": don't piss off the POTUS (and even then, you'll get a warning first).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think Petraeus is to blame. What can the dude do other than to call people to calm and dignity. A nice gesture of peace coming from a military man!
But the media and the whole hype machine we all feed with our tweetmania about stuff like that definitely helps fuel the fire in the belly of such loosers as the Gainsville Koran burners. I can't wait to hear Chomsky on this!
Sure, I'm not saying it was immoral for them to do it, just that I don't want to put any websites I control under such an AUP, because it's far too broad and subjective.
I agree this case is more than "personal sensibilities"; I was referring to their AUP in general when I said that, which has much more leeway for banning things. For example, what constitutes "promoting illegal drugs"--- is that only sites that are actually selling drugs, or will they pull the plug on a site advocating drug decriminalization, if the site becomes controversial? Would they pull the plug on xenu.net if it were hosted there? What's the threshhold for creating "a risk to a person's safety or health"? Are extreme-sports sites problematic? Does "assist others in defeating technical copyright protections" include discussions of emulators, or sites that host academic research on DRM schemes? The whole thing just gives me no confidence in hosting anything there.
Look, as much as I may disagree with Terry Jones, the only direct victim of his "hate speech" will be an inanimate object. If he was planning to burn, say, 200 copies of "The Audacity of Hope", there would be hardly any reaction to it. Burning a book does not kill troops and civilians overseas; suicidal fanatics, easily incensed by the smallest details of what Western democracy allows, do.
People do actually burn American flags on a semi-regular basis, don't they? I've heard of some court cases stemming from it (which the flag-burners have generally won), but no violence, at least not in the past few decades.
Given that some groups of Muslims have had their places of worship firebombed for the terrible crime of worshiping while Muslim, I have great confidence that if Muslims ever got together in the US for a flag or Bible burning, they would face retaliatory violence.
When you are performing an act that you know will cause a certain reaction you are either: 1) trying to make a statement or 2) intentionally trying to cause that reaction.
Whatever consequence is direct in this case does not eliminate the logical reasoning that provoking the Muslims would have its effects on troops and civilians serving in Muslim communities around the world.
Terry Jones probably doesn't see this 'DIRECTLY' but if the burning ceremony does happen, I bet it will become the headline speech for radical clerks and recruiters for Al Qaeda and the Taliban for months maybe years to come. We forget that not all non-militants in these areas like the United States...many only seek a more valid reason to join the cause.
It amazes me that this guy who preaches peace and the 10 commandments does not think his actions could lead to the deaths of Christians one way or another. I don't go as far as saying "burning a book does kill troops and civilians overseas" but the indirect result of this action is probably the same.
This is free publicity for radicalists, an event that would be preached as prove America is an enemy of the muslim world and their actions in the middle east are unsincere and what not.
I think that's probably true, but I'm wary of this line of arguments. For example, anti-Vietnam-war protestors were accused of endangering American troops by emboldening the Viet-Cong, and the journalists who published the Abu Ghraib photographs were accused of inflaming Muslim opinion by doing so, some commentators even going so far as to say that the decision to publish the photographs meant they had blood on their hands.
And that's all probably true. Anti-Vietnam-war protesters did endanger US troops and South Vietnamese civilians by emboldening the Viet Cong, and do in fact bear a great deal of responsibility for the fact that the war was eventually lost. The folks who chose to publish the Abu Ghraib photos and make a huge deal out of an incident of prisoner abuse no worse than what probably goes on a dozen times a year in any US civilian prison, likewise bear some responsibility for the provocation there.
I'm wary of it as well. But war protestors are protesting against US policy; the purpose of exposing abuse is to prevent it from occurring again. As far as I can tell, the Florida group are protesting the existence of Muslims. All are legally protected, but I'm comfortable drawing distinctions for myself for how I treat them.
> 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."
Care to explain? I've clearly missed something as I have no idea what you're talking about. We host with Rackspace at work and have no issue with cron jobs...
..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.
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.
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".
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.
The issue is more subtle than you make it out to be. Just as they have the right to free speech, others have no obligation to enable speech. They are not being denied free speech. They can still do and say as they please. Others have just decided not to enable it. There is a difference.
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.
And it is sentiments like this that simply confuse the issue. No one, including Rackspace, is denying them their right to free speech. The fact of the matter is that, when you choose to use your right to free speech in a manner that others find to be blatantly offensive; you open yourself up to repercussions from other private individuals and companies.
Do not confuse having a right to express your views in an open manner to mean that you do so without being held accountable for those views. What it means is that others cannot stop you from expressing those views, with rare exceptions. It in no way means that others can choose not to do business with you.
free speech is an illusion that doesn't exist, and shouldn't exist. There are lots of things that you can't say and shouldn't be allowed to say - yelling "fire" in a crowded place, inciting racial hatred, etc etc
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.
Agreed, except that all three branches of the government have a duty to uphold the constitution, not just congress.
I do, however, think there should be entities in a "common carrier" legal position: they have no legal liability for the content they carry, and they're required to offer service to everyone. Much as AT&T is not responsible for listening to my phone calls, and would not be liable were I to communicate a bomb threat, I believe pure network providers (bandwidth + routed IP address) should be common carriers.
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.
Very true. But it's also advantageous to a free society if you didn't get harassed just because you host some douche-bags on your network, as long as they aren't spamming or dDoS-ing someone.
"You may not publish, transmit or store on or via Rackspace's network and equipment any content or links to any content that Rackspace reasonably believes:
is excessively violent, incites violence, threatens violence, or contains harassing content or hate speech"
It's pretty clear that this church's site was inciting or had the potential to incite violence.
I think the tricky issue here is "hate speech". There are varying standards, and what metric will/do Rackspace and other hosting providers adhere to?
For example, what if a Rackspace-hosted site contained all or portions of the text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
Certainly the Catechism does not promote or incite physical violence. However, it contains unambiguous language regarding the immorality of homosexual acts: http://bit.ly/ccc2357
I'm not attempting to "stir the pot" and initiate an argument over this point in the teaching of the Catholic Church. But I wonder, could/would Rackspace and other hosting companies take down a site which cited this material or posted it verbatim? If not at present, are we headed toward such a day?
In general ...
At what point does a strongly stated religious or moral principle which is at complete odds with the beliefs or lifestyle of another person or group constitute hate speech? And who decides that with respect to something like web hosting, as opposed to someone preaching on a street corner out in public?
Please, no flames, I think this is a serious topic that deserves sincere and balanced treatment.
But the thing is that is religious text, and also isn't particularly inflammatory. We know that religions don't usually accept homosexuality. They're not saying to burn a couple hundred.
But really if some organisation was to round up a few hundred Bibles, post on their site that they were going to burn them and here's an invitation, bring your family and your friends, we're doing it to show how we don't like Christians, you can bet that the ISP servicing their site would likely go "uh.... yeah not so much" and also pull the plug.
If they just said they were having a meeting to talk about how they don't like Muslims, fine. You can do that. But it's a bit more drastic to burn a bunch of their holy texts which is DEFINITELY with the intent of inciting violence or hatred toward a (very LARGE) group of people.
Edit: The "very large" bit is not to say that the numbers matter in this case (I'd be just as much against doing that to any other religion or group regardless of size), but only that they are spitting in the eyes of quite a few people and that it's unfortunate.
In the case of Rackspace, when they receive complaints and start to wonder whether that religious organisations' continued business is really worth dealing with large-scale DDoS etc.
I'm not arguing they're [edit] not [/edit, sigh] within their rights. I just don't like the situation, and I think their action will inflame the loony right even more.
You have the right to get on a soap-box and say whatever you want. You just don't have the right to use my business's facilities to do so. All businesses should reserve the right to refuse service, and exercise that when they feel it's warranted.
Fully agreed. The only reason I would find that type of shut-off acceptable would be if Rackspace were getting DDOS'd to a point that was costing them significant expenses by way of bandwidth, manpower, or downtime credits to other customers. In such a case, shutting them off for causing these damages while violating Terms Of Services would definitely be warranted.
I agree with most of what you said and, as one whose business hosts websites, I'd probably do the same as Rackspace.
However, the "business relationship is a two way street" theory has some caveats. While many of us are familiar with the "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs in brick and mortar stores, it's not always that simple.
Obiviously, these examples aren't entirely analogous, but given the litigious nature of American society, any time you refuse/halt service to a customer, it has to be considered. I could easily see this Quran-burning pastor suing on the grounds that he was discriminated against.
It is discriminatory to treat someone differently because of an attribute they have which they cannot change. So, for example, I shouldn't refuse to photograph weddings of same-sex couples, or midgets, or disabled persons etc.
I could easily see this Quran-burning pastor suing on the grounds that he was discriminated against.
How could he claim that? Federal law forbids discrimination in hiring based on religion, but that doesn't mean once I hire a Muslim worker because of his ability to perform the job I have to allow him to take out a rug, kneel and pray for an hour each day while on the clock. He still has to play by my rules, which are applied equally to everyone.
Dude, the prayers last for about 5 minutes each and it only occurs 5 times a day, 2 of which are during normal working hours. I assume it's fine to let someone knock off work for 10 minutes a day. Heck, I know loads of people who spend hours "working on Facebook".
Sure, civil rights laws were enacted to ensure that discriminatory practices that are patently hateful don't enjoy legal protection.
Still, this is not that. This isn't a guy quietly practicing his faith and sharing it peacefully with others. To hear some people say it, he's honestly inciting violence. He's being willfully, dangerously provocative.
Wouldn't be surprised if he did find a lawyer to buy him a few more minutes in the spotlight. Interesting angle, and one I hadn't thought of. Ugh, dealing with people: at once the best and worst part of business.
But I would make a stronger distinction between (1) believing that a particular religion is superior to others and (2) believing that #1 makes it acceptable to stomp all over other's religious sensibilities.
I don't think many people realise that using an internet service is like stepping onto private land. So, they then don't realise that rules on hate, copyright etc. apply to them while using the service.
I would be surprised if it was anymore than an ingenious marketing move by Rackspace. This nut job, with his gunslinger beard, has been the fastest growing piece of WORLD news this month so far. Obama, Petraeus, Clinton, The Pope, and even Angelina Jolie have shared their voice.
If I were the church's Gardener, I would've gone on the news and said the same thing too and my phone would be ringing off the hook.
People shouldn't get too angry over the burning. Sure it's a rallying cry for some of the more violent minded clerics, but it's not like they need much of an excuse to incite violence.
Sometimes sacred cows need to be eaten before people realize that religious bullshit is the root of many of the world's problems.
If I were running a hosting company, I'd be wary of permitting religious content of any sort
This makes no sense whatsoever. Obviously, you haven't thought this through, since your refusal to host (for example) an online Koran would result in death threats, protests, outrage from online teenaged suburban UMC liberal retards, etc, etc.
I'd run a terrible hosting company, so let's get that out of the way completely. :)
Under Danilo's Fictional Hosting, I'm not saying I would refuse religious content outright, I'm saying I'd be much more cautious about religious content than Marjorie's Baking Blog because religion, as a result of the all too common "I'm better than the rest of you" rule, is just a troublesome topic.
Porn is a troublesome topic too -- many hosts don't permit it. Too much exposure to Dawkins leaves me with only the most feeble of arguments against giving the same treatment to religion.
Personally, I'd think that Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi add up to a very strong argument against banning religious content. But as it's your (hypothetical) hosting company, you're obviously free to do as you wish. :-)
For the most part, the reasons that hosts don't permit Porn is that pornographers are notoriously bad at paying their bills, and the amount of fraud and theft in the online porn industry is staggering. It's also why it's nearly impossible for pornographers to get merchant accounts with credit card processors.
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...
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.
"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.)
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.
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
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."
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.
guess it all lies in the interpretation and in the intentions of the early compilers / facilitators of such books and men in position of power ...
Correct me if I'm wrong but Christianity, Islam and even Buddhism rapidly propagated in early ages through conversions and there was a conscious effort for the same in terms of the growth of religion. Maybe such text was merely an aid in helping with the growth of religion in order to establish a certain superiority for followers of one religion over another.
For what it's worth (and I know you don't care) each of those verses have a historic context in which they were invoked.
It's a hamfisted critique at best, and utterly ridiculous when you consider that it is being made by someone who has the good fortune not to see the violence being done in his own name.
Ignoring historical context for cheap political points is a rhetorical tool for deceivers, not hackers.
I'm not sure historical context helps you cast those quotes in a "peaceful" light. Islam's early spread essentially was at the edge of a sword and conquest.
I'm sincerely interested to hear the context I'm missing.
You cannot possibly expect an honest reply if you go in with an attitude that reeks of prejudice.
Islam's early spread included conquest, and also included very real economic aspects that were appreciated by its adherents. The religions in the middle east at the time were extremely taxing; one of the reasons there is no priesthood in Islam is the sheer amount that would be paid in tithes to the pre-Islamic religions in the area.
Furthermore, as context, many of these verses are in a historic situation where Muslims were betrayed by an entire group and were on the verge of annihilation. Please don't pretend that violence is abhorrent in that situation. Regardless of what group you belong to (or don't), the fact is that every group in that situation lashes out; whether it is burning and leveling large parts of the South or expelling / killing a group of people who had betrayed a nation. This clearly is not meant to be the behavior in an era where there is peace between various groups.
If what you say is true, you need to account for why there were any Christians or Jews or Hindus for that matter left alive in territories conquered by Muslims. I don't doubt that there were atrocities and acts of malice / evil inflicted by conquerers, but the unfortunate truth is that it is a common part of war; then and now.
I won't be bringing up the topic again, I don't think it is worth it and I doubt you are honestly interested in the issue. Still, it's sad that you choose to demonize 1/6th of the population of the world. Best of luck to you if that's how you choose to live your life.
You are aware that book-burning is mentioned in the Bible?
Acts 19:19 "A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly. When they calculated the value of the scrolls, the total came to fifty thousand drachmas." (NIV translation)
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 ...
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.
But did the actual website contain hate-speech? I know these guys are clowns, but internet-archives only has an old page from 2008. My google cache has some crackpot pages, but nothing that rises (in my mind) to the level of hate-speech:
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
> 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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Free speech can be, and often is, offensive as hell.
(edit: Quick clarification - this comment is not meant to indicate, either way, my stance on the act of burning Qu'rans or flags, or any other free speech issue, for that matter.)
A book is just paper with words printed on it. So long as there is no danger of permanently erasing the content from history, then it's just like burning any other paper.
Book burning has a very dark history, often long and traumatically remembered.
Heinrich Heine famously wrote "Where they burn books, so too will they in the end burn human beings." a century later his writings ware torched at the Opernplatz in Berlin, among many other books.
Curiously, that famous (and prescient) quote was from a play referring to the burning of the Quran.
That it is within the legal rights of people to do so, is a testament to a great legal system we have, that people are actually doing this abhorrent act, is very disturbing.
Historically book burning was offensive because books were the sole record of ideas, and they were expensive to produce. Thus, burning one might actually reduce the chances that someone else might get to read it.
In today's world, there is zero chance that any organization could ever hope to remove a "book" from the world. Further, this group first purchased all the copies of the Quran only to burn them (this actually helps make printing Qurans profitable).
There is so little similarity between today's world and the world in which book burning put ideas at risk... and this is so clearly a publicity stunt, that I can't even remotely bring myself to get irritated by it.
I honestly don't know if Terry Jones, et. al., realize that they are following in the footsteps of history's most ignominious figures and movements by doing this. I have to believe they are just ignorant of history-- willingly or not.
Its hard to believe that they've found a way to burn a Qur'an in a way that is offensive not only to Muslims, but also to Jews and Christians-- the two groups who are most portrayed as "at war" with Islam.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Edit: Apparently the good reverend was also promising to burn copies of the Talmud (presumably burning the Torah would remove all those useful passages about gays)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Imagine a comparable scenario: an independent newspaper is renting a printing press, they aren't behind on rent but the provider decides they don't like what the paper is printing so they repossess the printing press. That's definitely a form of violence, even if it isn't physical violence (in the same manner that publicly burning another religion's holy text is a form of violence).
I think using the word violence to describe those actions dilutes its meaning.
edit: I disagree with the parent's point, but the post is civil and is a valid part of the discussion. Please do not downvote it because you disagree with it.
I think burning Korans, or burning crosses, or burning any books certainly classify as violent acts. I doubt many people would argue otherwise.
By the same token, removing an organization's website hosting is also a violent act, though of a different and certainly less serious sort. If Rackspace (or whomever) yanked EFF's website from the web I suspect a lot of people would implicitly appreciate the violence inherent in that event.
I'm not trying to defend these scumbags, they are scumbags and what they are doing is wrong. But Rackspace is also in the wrong (though on a much different plane). The way to deal with assholes shouting hate on the street corner is not to kick the soap box out from under them and smash it with an axe. It may be satisfying, but it's ultimately unproductive.
Regarding your second point, also note that I am not advocating making their speech illegal. What I'm recognizing is that others might not want to be associated with it, or enable it in any way. If, for example, I had a venue of some kind, and I was approached by Neo-Nazis to hold a rally, I'd refuse. I can't maintain that position while also faulting Rackspace.
Have fun downvoting everything you disagree with. Someone even went and downvoted other, unrelated posts of mine just to spite me. Note that your downvotes have done nothing to change my opinion; I will leave you all with this:
Bro, every response to you has been a point of discussion you could have responded to, to convince us you're older than 14 and persuade us of your viewpoint. When your face stops burning, think about what you've said, and answer this question: Have you ever met a Muslim?
Dude, where the fuck do you live? Where I am, the average Islamic-world immigrant is, like the average Chinese immigrant or the average Romanian immigrant, about an order of magnitude more productive and conscientious a citizen than an average decadent native-born layabout. Have you ever even spoken to a muslim?
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