2008 March 23
LINKS: Technology War (religious censorship of Fitna movie), War On Drugs vs dying child’s last wish, tasered to death over hot pockets
Posted by Clint under Abuse Of Authority, Articles, Censorship, Corporations, Documentaries, Geek Politics, Internet, Links, Media, News, Overly-Harsh Punishments, Politics, Religion, Technology, Technology War, The War On Drugs, VideoCENSORSHIP/RELIGION: Network Solutions takes down website for hosting anti-Islam movies — free speech online is controlled by only a few corporations, and they just want everyone to get along so that we keep buying stuff. When your domain name holder can pull your account at any time, you don’t truly have the freedom to express what you want. Avoid NetworkSolutions, and avoid GoDaddy. Go elsewhere for your needs; these guys are not YOUR friend, not even when you PAY them. But you can still watch it on Google Video HERE.
Speaking of religion… SCIENTOLOGY IS A DANGEROUS, CRIMINAL CULT: Read about Gareth Cales and Sean Carasov — it looks like Scientologists poisoned Sean Carasov’s cat, then had him arrested for “threats” which have not been disclosed, much like Keith Hanson. Ultimately, on the protest day, Gareth had to have the police intervene to keep them from being followed into the subway. This is scary stuff. All Scientologist leaders should contract cancer and die. The world would be a much better place. All hail ANONYMOUS and XENU! 6AUP602!
WAR ON DRUGS HURTS CHILDREN (VIDEO SEGMENT): Douchebag U.S. Prisons Deny Man Temporary Release So Dying Daughter Can Have Last Wish - To Hug Her Father. Um, what about a conjugal visit? Man is in jail on a drug conviction. Remember: Drugs are victimless crimes. It probably hurt the child a lot more to lose a father, than how much “society” was hurt by the father’s actions. Yet here, a child has become a victim to a compassionless system; the American Justice system — which imprisons the most non-violent people of any system in the planet. Laws are not Morals, and in my book, non-violent criminals are, for the most part political prisoners.
Speaking of children…Child tasered to death after Mom makes him return to store he works at to face discipline for stealing Hot Pockets …. I guess before tasers, they would’ve shot him in the head? Of course, if you shoot someone unarmed, you tend to get sued. But if you TASER them & they die from “exicited delirium”, then a cop gets to blame the victim, avert the lawsuit, AND get away with cowardly murder. This is the 3rd taser death this week, and at least the 2nd time in a week I’ve read about a mother losing her son because she called 911. This is why I propose a softer “811″ manned by people who actually risk their lives by not shooting anyone they perceive as a threat. It would basically be handled like the stereotypical people in white who bring you to the insane asylum.
2008 March 24 at 2:06 AM
[...] Taken Down By Network Solutions” Opponent: “Hisbollah hui, Geert Wilders pfui?” Clint’a Blog: “Technology War (religious censorship)” Sugiero: “Network Solutions Bans Geert Wilders Movie “Fitna”. Update: Network [...]
2008 March 24 at 1:04 PM
Network Solutions Pratices Pre-Censorship On Geert
NetWork Solutions, which is a website name registrar has pre-emptively censored and disabled a site registered to provide an outlet to the Wilder’s film.
2008 March 24 at 2:21 PM
Censorship/religion:
If you follow the links on the original articles, the movie appears to have been a hoax(or this is what they now claim).
As far as the censorship goes, I have mixed feelings about this. If the site was hosted on network solutions servers, then I do believe they should have the right to censor it(it’s their equipment, and you’re just renting space on it). However, I DO NOT belive they should have the right to censor traffic that is just flowing over their network, or to fuck with DNS registration.
In other words, run your own server. Even if it involves extra work.
2008 March 24 at 2:21 PM
If you’re not running your own server, don’t bitch about being censored.
2008 March 24 at 2:26 PM
Pray tell, how are you going to run your own DNS server that the rest of the world recognizes and responds to?
2008 March 24 at 3:15 PM
I wasn’t referring to DNS servers. Simply about a server to host your own site. Hence my disclaimer about not being allowed to fuck with DNS registrations.
Yes, it comes down to the semantics of the word host. Was the site simply registered with Network solutions and did they block the DNS servers from going to that site(uncool), or was it hosted by network solutions, and they said, we don’t want to store this on our servers(fair game)?. There’s a difference. The article says hosted by network solutions.
2008 March 24 at 3:38 PM
Honestly, I don’t find the difference between the two enough to even warrant investigating. I think it’s a bit pedantic that you even care one way or another. I’m not here to discuss whether what they are within their rights to do it, I’m here to discuss the fact that what they are doing is wrong, either way.
I find your comments distracting from the real issue, as if you missed the point entirely, haven’t been following the trend of domain name registries censoring their hosts, and only care about what is legal, not what is right. To the point of commenting about a possibility you didn’t bother to research, despite the fact that the company is in the wrong EITHER WAY as far as I’m concerned.
I get it. You’re not pro freedom for companies. Your pro status-quo, and where a lack of law permits censorship in situations, you gladly and willingly stand behind such censorship as being within their rights. You’ve made this point about 5,000 times.
2008 March 24 at 4:17 PM
It’s not about law or legal issues at all, nor did I mention law anywhere. It is all about what is right and what is wrong. So I don’t see how my comment distract form the issue at all. In fact, it is integral to the issue.
Censoring a site hosted on your servers: Not wrong.
Messing with DNS registrations = WRONG!
So no, I’m not all about the right for corporations to do whatever they want, or I would have argued that they should also be allowed to censor DNS registrations. I do believe that should be regulated. It’s not a black and white issue. There is a grey line there somewhere.
Now on occasion, you do like to censor your blog, right? How is that any different? How is your right to censor any different than someone else’s?
Anyways, my comment wasn’t even about the article itself(or I would have commented way earlier). It was really a response to Wake up America’s comment in an effort to determine whether NS was the host, or simply the registrar as he/she claimed. Because to me it does make a difference, and if he/she is going to post it, it better be correct.
2008 March 24 at 4:31 PM
To answer your question on the differences:
1) People who comment on my blog are not paying customers for a paid service that I offer to the public.
2) I have not entered into contracts with anyone to provide them a service.
3) I don’t really have a defined a terms of service, probably because:
4) I don’t consider myself a service provider in this sense. (I’m actually an end-user of WordPress, who is a service provider.)
5) I am an individual, not a company.
In the end, company is censoring blog because of complaints from muslims. This is no different than a newspaper refusing to print the Danish Muslim cartoons because they don’t want to offend people. As far as I am concerned, this is a threat to MY right to have access to whatever information I want.
A content-providing company like Network Solutions should not have any “personal” stance on religion, unless they specifically want to be a “Christian hosting company”, which they are not.
They were not suspended for terms of service violations. They were suspended for exceeding their bandwidth, despite having a low hit counter.
I could stoop low and call you a muslim sympathizer, because this mysterious shutdown is almost certainly complaint-driven — and guess who would complain about an anti-Muslim movie that nobody has even seen yet (because it doesn’t exist?)?
2008 March 24 at 5:03 PM
I agree with you 100% that the reason for the censorship is idiotic. However, if they are the host, they should have the right to handle it as they see fit.
But like I said, that can (or at least should be) avoided by running your own web(not DNS) server. If the reason for the shutdown is exceeding bandwith(and like you, I don’t think it is, I think that’s just an excuse), then that situation could, and should be handled by: “Hey, here’s your actual bandwidth usage, and per your contract, here’s how much it’s going to cost you, if you want that much bandwidth.”
Where did you get the info that too much bandwidth was the reason? Just curious, I couldn’t find any reference to that.
2008 March 24 at 5:38 PM
I just wanted to add one clarification to my stance. Just because I believe a company has a right to do something(which I do), does not mean I respect them for doing so(which in this case I don’t).
They won’t be getting my business.
2008 March 24 at 6:05 PM
Thanks for the clarifications, they are helpful. I guess I just don’t quite fully see the agenda in pointing that facet of the situation out. It seems to convey sympathy to the people I am against.
I don’t know that they should have a right to handle it as they see fit, on a subjective basis. If that is the case, they should say, “We can terminate you at any time, based on complaints from any group, for any reason”, and have that in the contract. If they’re open to the public, then they should be open to the public equally. And I would stand behind additional legislation to ensure that.
And there’s always the counter-question: Well, what if you are then forced to host pro-Scientology stuff? At which point things get hairy. I could get pedantic and say it’s not a recognized religion in places, and I could host in one of those places.
Or I could point out that the video in question is an ANTI-religion video, and that hosting pro-religious content and anti-religious content might require different considerations. So maybe the law I’d like to have would actually be: Any service open to the general public (i.e. not religion-specific.. I’m sure you could have a Christian ISP) must allow any anti-religious matter against any religion to be posted, but are not required to host pro-religious matter.
Does it seem like a double standard? Perhaps. I think it would protect people’s rights not to have to epouse a religion they don’t believe in, while also protecting the rights of critics.
And they wont be getting my business either. Totally agree there
2008 March 24 at 7:09 PM
They pretty much do say they can terminate you for many reasons in their TOS, which you agree to when you sign up with them. I’ve excerpted a couple of paragraphs. They have been reduced to show just relevant parts that may apply here:
1. This includes, without limitation, material [...] and material that is [...] defamatory, libelous, [...]harassing, [...]hate propaganda, [...] or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature.
10. Engaging in any activities that do or are designed to harass, or that will cause a denial-of-service (e.g., synchronized number sequence attacks) to any other user whether on the Network Solutions network or on another provider’s network.
While it might seem I’m sympathetic, I’m not. I too would like to see this video(if it ever existed) released.
Which is why I have mixed feelings about it. And which is why I make a distinction between hosting content, and allowing content to go through your network.
I forget who said this, and I may misquote this, but:
“While I may hate what you say, I am willing to die to defend your right to say it!”
To summarize my stance, the government may never censor, corporations can, but it doesn’t mean I respect them for it. However, I will defend their right to do so.
2008 March 24 at 7:22 PM
Be that as it may, defending someone’s right to say something is quite different than defending someone’s right to prevent someone else from saying something. Do you not think there’s a difference involved?
2008 March 24 at 9:41 PM
There is a difference. However, I don’t consider having someone host your site a “right”, unless it’s funded by public dollars.
Yes, the internet was subsidized. But only as far as the architecture and means of transmission.
Which is different than hosting a web server.
My point is, NS is not the only host available. There are others. If they don’t want to host it, someone else will. Which is why the distinction between registrar/ISP/host is so important to me.
As an individual, you have the right to censor your blog. It’s publicaly accessible. As a reason you state:
5) I am an individual, not a company
This is where our views diverge. To me there’s not much distinction between an individual and a company. A company which was founded by somebody should have as much rights as an individual, and an individual should have the same right as a corporation.
Basically, If I as an individual started a company, and it became successful, I don’t feel that I should be penalized and have additional restrictions placed upon me(to a certain degree).
So basically, if you as an individual have the right to censor, then so do the corporations. If they don’t, neither should you. Imagine if you were unable to delete any comments.
I know, kind of a double edged sword, isn’t it?
The solution?:
A publically, tax funded ISP? But do we really wan’t that? Cause I could see that going horribly wrong too.
2008 March 25 at 11:31 AM
There’s simply no good reason to give a company the right of a person, and in fact there was backlash from the idea of corporations BEFORE IT WAS EVEN IMPLEMENTED. And those people were right, and today’s society and events are proof that they were.
If you run something that anyone can come in and sign up for, it is much like having a shop on a street that anyone can walk in on. You can’t rightly say “No Christians” or “No blacks”. You’re not allowed to operate an establishment that is open to the public while specifically disincluding part of the public by race, gender, religion, etc.
This should be no different.
It’s somewhat analagous to having a printing press business that anyone can walk into and print something. Except, if they print, say, anti-Christian stuff — suddenly you revoke their services, even though they’ve already paid to use them, set up shop next to your printing press, and can’t easily continue with their business until they pick up shop and move to another town with another printing press. Maybe you’re cool with that. I’m not. It’s what the libertarians got wrong: A truly free market does not protect the consumers OR their rights; it puts all the power in those that already Have.
As our world virtualizes, every real-world law needs to cross the boundary and become a virtual law, or else we the people will have far less protection in the virtual world than in the real world. And, for the most part, it is not happening. The establishment, the powers that be, “they” — are using this one-time global transition as a political land-grab to grab back any and all situations where we might have rights that protect us. This is just one of many examples.
As for your last 3 paragraphs: You’re going out of your way to answer a question about a situation that you invented in your mind, and using the bad solution to justify your earlier position. That’s fallacious self-justifying circular logic.
Anwyay — Network Solutions doesn’t mind hosting Hizbollah’s website.
http://www.freeconstitutionblog.com/2008/03/fitna-movie-elaborate-hoax.html
Funny stuff. The guy who started this thinks the Qu’ran should be banned? I think he made a point — just talking about a movioe that doesn’t even exist can get you censored by pro-Muslim companies that apparently don’t censor Hizbollah.
I really don’t think Network Solutions, as a provider of a virtual establishment anyone can “walk into”, should have a political position.
2008 March 25 at 2:34 PM
So, if you started a hosting company, and decided not to host any religious(or anti- religious) content on it, you don’t think that should be allowed? It’s your company after all! So at the point you form a company, you have to give up you personal convictions?
2008 March 25 at 2:38 PM
As far as the printing press analogy goes, I kind of disagree. If the printing press does not allow printing of anti-christian messages, then set one up next next door that advertizes as being open to that crowd. There’s probably a market there.
It’s happened before. Internet porn?
2008 March 25 at 2:52 PM
@#17/Chriggy:
That’s still not analagous to what Network Solutions is doing. They are letting some religious content through, but not others. Whatever your standard, you have to apply it equally.
More importantly, they are letting non-customers (complainers) control paying customers actions.
If you want to start a company that explicitly wont hold religious content of any kind: Fine.
But that’s not what’s happening here. They’re censoring paying users content based on backlack by non-paying random people over a video that doesn’t even actually exist!
And setting up a print press next door is not necessarily something you just “order up”.
How about this — change ISPs. Lets see you have a new ISP by tomorrow
It’s not quite so simple. We’re talking about a disruption that could take weeks to resolve, AFTER paying a service contract. If this was a business, I’d already have the gears for a tortuous interference lawsuit grinding.
2008 March 25 at 3:29 PM
More importantly, they are letting non-customers (complainers) control paying customers actions.
Yes, they are. No disagreement there. Much like Cartoon Network flaked on the BET thing. And I have equal respect for both for doing so(none).
However, they still have the right to do so.
2008 March 25 at 3:30 PM
I’m also assuming that you would not be charged for the time your site is offline. Otherwise it would be breach of contract, and wrong.
2008 March 25 at 6:36 PM
[...] Clint’s Blog [...]
2008 March 26 at 12:36 PM
Wilders Movie Website, Network Solutions, Is Caving Into Radical Islam.
Muslims Against Sharia neither endorse nor condemn “Fitna”; we have not seen the film. However, we find it disturbing that Network Solution suspended “Fitna” website while hosting a multitude of radical Islamic websites, some of which belong to (or are closely affiliated with) terrorist groups.
http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/03/is-wilders-movie-website-network.html
2008 March 29 at 12:23 PM
UPDATE on Network Solutions removing site that hosted the “Fitna” movie, criticizing Islam:
Watch the movie on LiveLeak:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103
WRONG! ****EVEN LIVELEAK***, a website where you can routinely watch REAL PEOPLE ACTUALLY DIE IN REAL LIFE — has been forced to take down Fitna.
WTF. LiveLeak was the ONE place you could watch Saddam Hussein die. It was the one place you could see what was really happening in Iraq.
And even THEY were threatened!
Has anyone actually seen the movie yet?
Meanwhile, the UN sites with those who want to censor religious criticism:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/27/news/UN-GEN-UN-Rights-Council.php
Shills!
But don’t worry. Since they wont air Fitna, filmmaker Geert Wilders plans to make a “cartoon film featuring the Prophet Mohammed as a paedophile”:
http://www.nisnews.nl/public/280308_1.htm
It’s on. As globalization increases, laws across the world will normalize (see UN ruling above, or consider how Tibetan protesters were still beaten, even in America).
Much like the technology war, this is a one-time chance for the people on planet earth to assert their right to free speech against religions. Geert Wilders, and everyone else, needs to take a stand against these fascist Muslims who want to ban any movie that offends them.
2008 March 29 at 12:47 PM
DOWNLOAD FITNA THE MOVIE HERE, USING BITTORRENT:
VERIFIED AS WORKING:
http://www.fulldls.com/torrent-movies-918310.html
NOT VERIFIED, BUT SHOULD WORK:
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4102648/Fitna_the_Movie__Geert_Wilders__film_about_the_Quran_(English
http://www.fulldls.com/torrent-others-941429.html
http://btjunkie.org/torrent/fitna/2289ef8e43352e6dabd91fe05d3beb8558c4d6def40a
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4104718/Fitna_in_DVD-formaat
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4102630/Fitna_the_Movie__Geert_Wilders_____film_over_de_Kora
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4103761/Fitna_the_Movie_-_doc._about_the_strange_side_of_the_fundamental
http://btjunkie.org/torrent/Fitna-the-Movie-doc-about-the-strange-side-of-the-fundamental-believe/4486bd383dfe0fc82059be71246cb12e85cd6fb2df28
http://www.torrentreactor.net/torrents/1758575/FITNA-super-video-CD
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4105717/FITNA_super_video_CD
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4104154/FITNA_-_with_Danish__subs_Danske_undertekster
http://www.torrentreactor.net/torrents/1755965/Fitna-the-movie-by-geert-wilders-en-Mick
http://btjunkie.org/torrent/Fitna-English-avi/866622ee4e31d5b00d0add86548bdc4820c85db1f256
http://btjunkie.org/torrent/Fitna-by-Geert-Wilders-512×384-Sub-English-avi/3747a148747deafd673a610b645a499d561963c1e895
http://www.fulldls.com/torrent-others-940407.html
http://btjunkie.org/torrent/Fitna-the-Movie/4486cb7cd13c81885d9e04ee90610482e38e02086f3f
…Or simply check http://www.scrapetorrent.com for new torrents
Also, feel free to get “Submission”, by Theo Van Gogh, grandson of Vincent Van Gogh — he was killed over it:
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4057736/Submission_Part_I_-_Theo_van_Gogh_-_DVD_PAL
Don’t know how to download torrents? Google for “uTorrent”, install it, go to the links above, and open them with uTorrent. It’s that easy.
2008 March 29 at 7:55 PM
Or, watch “Fitna” on google video HERE:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3369102968312745410&hl=en
2008 March 31 at 10:07 PM
[...] rights — hell, United Nations Secretary-General stands behind the censorship of Fitna. I seem to remember appeasement didn’t work with Hitler in World War 2 — so why are [...]