Google has replaced GoDaddy as the registrar. Afaict, the domain continues to be hosted by/through CloudFlare, as it has been for several years.

The "hack" is fake.

> The "hack" is fake.

Unproven but likely. The "defaced" page was posted through their CMS (WordPress), which is rather atypical for defaced domains. The writer's promise to only take the domain down for 24 hours is also quite unusual.

What seems most likely to me is that this was used as an excuse to take down their content until their domain was transferred away from GoDaddy.

So is Google now a more reliable/bulletproof registrar? I think I've heard CloudFlare will not take refuse anything

Tbh, I doubt Google knows they're the Stormers' registrar yet; you can transfer domains automatically.

CloudFlare doesn't provide hosting, it's a reverse proxy. But, if you believe http://www.crimeflare.com/cfs.html, the actual web server sitting behind dailystormer.com is hosted by online.net, of France.

Right. I use CF. I just meant that there has been criticism aimed at CF for 'protecting' (providing service to) unpopular speech (even harmful stuff like IS), and I think I read they were unwilling to refuse service to anybody.

France, hey? I've actually heard France is competitive with US when it comes to internet and free speech. Do you think that's true? I wonder which country most protects speech on the internet?

It is illegal to promote ethnic hatred or deny the Holocaust in France, so...

Is there any country that protects all speech that you know of?

(Related to the law you mentioned, in Germany they also have laws that are reactions to WWII, and they arrested some Chinese tourists for making Nazi salutes for tourist photos outside a government building last week.)

Protecting speech is often in tension with other individual liberties that are supposed to be protected, and the purpose of government is to arbitrate those disputes. I don't think there are any that grant unfettered protection to speech-- a government that permitted advocation of treason, for instance, probably wouldn't last very long.

It is definitely possible to have complete protection of speech. It's a choice, and the repercussions of it would not involve great harm, although since the 1950s we seem to be getting closer (and sometimes further).

Treason is only possible if a country is at war (ie has an "enemy"). The speech would be protected as it is now (that wouldn't be the crime they break), but they could be found guilty of committing treason by the same (speech in this case) act.

It seems that entry may be out-of-date (or else traffic to {80,443}/TCP from not-Cloudflare sources is being filtered).