I mean, it should give you pause. That's how civil society functions. You should care how your behavior affects other people, and you should be able to respond to immoral behavior without restricting yourself to a rigid core set of principles.

The reason the first amendment is so restrained is that the government is too powerful to be trusted with any more power. But people aren't, in fact they're expected to pick up the slack where the government doesn't have authority.

I don't want to live in a world where people feel comfortable doing whatever they want as long as it's legal.

"don't want to live in a world where people feel comfortable doing whatever they want as long as it's legal."

Lol why not? Sounds like freedom.

I don't think so, I think it sounds like people abdicating their ethical power to the government. I'd rather live in a world where people are willing to break unjust laws sometimes, and uphold morals that don't exist in law. The government should not dictate our morals and culture.

For example, we have a culture that (rightly) discourages lying, but making lying illegal would be a disaster.

When lies cause harm to others they are usually a type of fraud. Those are crimes.

Edit: I'm talking 'real' harm. The kind you could sue someone for, with real actual damages. Not simply emotional distress or inconvenience.

If I promise to pick my friend up at the airport and don't go, have I harmed them? Is it a crime?

If I run for president and lie about my positions to get elected, have I harmed anyone? Is it a crime?

If I create a second identity and maintain two relationships in different states, have I harmed anyone? Is it a crime?

In response to your edit, yes, that's exactly the point. Not all harm can be sued for. Not all wrongs are illegal. Some wrongs cannot be illegal.

If I promise to be faithful to my wife and then cheat on her, do you believe I've done anything wrong? If so, do you think it should be illegal?

Or let's take emotion out of it and focus on "real actual damages". Say I verbally promise my friend a job at my company in New York and encourage them to move here, with no intention of actually hiring them. Have I harmed them if they trusted me enough to sign an expensive lease in New York? If so, should it be illegal to break a verbal promise? Should everyone act like robots and refuse to trust each other without written contracts?

The last question with the job is basically textbook promissory estoppel: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/promissory_estoppel.asp.

Because it used to be legal to own people.

So because laws are not perfect, and have at times in the past illustrated issues in our society, because they are the result of a long-term evolution, they can not be trusted? Ever?

Do you not think that in the long-run that our law will make all that is universally agreed to be unethical and harmful to others also illegal?

What I'm saying is law marches in the direction of ever improving it's fit to society. You seem to throw that out the window and think of law as some unrelated and untrustable thing.

Why should the law evolve to be more just? If anything, wouldn't the laws that were most fair be the ones that due to their age in spite of history's blows indicates preferential selection, and that age of the law may correlate to the relatively simplicity of its authoring government and hence maybe fewer externalities. We now live in a period of perennial voter disenfranchisement, and it seems that the civil rights movement will not have the lasting stopping power it was perceived to wield to cement incremental progress in our society. I think that recent legislation, although almost never as surely heinous as chattel slavery or slaughter of Native Americans or racial quotas etc., that there is a difference between the 'what we think is worth keeping' and the 'what we can expect to be exasperatingly legislated in the near future'

In particular, if you want to think of the law in evolutionary terms, it has two different pressures on it: pressure to become more just, and pressure to become a better tool to protect the powerful. It is not obvious that pressure to become more just is stronger.

"law marches in the direction of ever improving it's fit to society"

Right, we're all in agreement here. Law should conform to society, society need not conform to law. When the law is wrong, we can resist it, and when the law is absent, we can replace it.

> I'm quietly waiting to see where Daily Stormer ends up landing, so that I can start treating them as the 'real' bastions of free speech, and very likely start throwing them my business.

Until I was nearly finished with the second paragraph, I thought you were referring to Daily Stormer as the 'real' bastion of free speech you wanted to throw your bisiness at. That sentence could probably be clarified if that's not your intent.

As to the point, I agree that we'll articulated and followed policies would be beneficial for all, but I feel for these businesses as well. They are aware that regardless of how sane their policy or how much they profess to be upholding free speech, they will be called out as Nazi sympathizers and angry mobs will gather. People are not at their most rational currently, and any company hosting them might be affecting the future of their company and possibly even the wellbeing of their employees (which is ironic and sad if true, given the organization at the heart of this).

It should be clarified, but I appear to have missed your comment until the edit window had closed.

As to your second paragraph, I agree completely. I hate the negativity associated with a term like 'virtue signaling', but it seems like EasyDNS here was looking to virtue signal that they're not doing business with nazis. I expect they'll get a lot more business out of that than if they'd just quietly refused to do business with DailyStormer.

To (poorly) paraphrase someone else's thoughts on the matter, the fact that nazis, or the Westboro Baptist Church are free to spew their bile without censorship gives me comfort that the media has the freedom to be critical of our administration. I understand that this isn't government censorship, but honestly, I'm a little bit shocked that the DailyStormer is still hunting around for a host / registrar, and if this story hadn't broken, I might have gone on just assuming that they'd found a new home somewhere.

OK, but isn't it just as likely that you'll land on a registrar that is notorious for specifically hosting seedy stuff (perhaps even under the guise of free speech)? I wouldn't be comfortable giving my money to an organization like that, at all.

I was thinking that the ultimate response could be to start your own registrar. However, I have no idea how difficult that would be.

Actually, I looked into it, and aside from the $10k initial fee for ICANN (which might be avoidable?), it didn't look all that difficult to set up.

The ultimate response is replacing them with decentralized naming systems but it won't be a fast response.

There's a distinction between the government repressing speech and private businesses refusing to give the speech-maker a platform.

Further, certain kinds of speech have never been considered protected: "fighting words", certain classes of harassment, fomenting seditious, the famous "fire!" in a crowded theater.

Note, too, it's easy to draw a line around advocating for racial supremacy and genocide without stepping onto the famous slippery slope.

Anyway. "free speech" is not a uniform perfect right that applies maximally in all situations.

Would you agree, then, that Internet access is now a basic human right? If so, would you also agree that said access should include some platform where one is entitled to ownership and thus the freedom of expression - within the bounds of the law?

I really dislike Nazis, but I love the liberty of free speech more. It's hard to stand up for them, but it's not 'correct' speech that needs protection.

And no, no I don't have realistic answers - other than to suggest we consider adding those protections to domain registry and regulate ISPs to ensure the ability of hosting private servers.

I'm okay with saying nobody needs to host it. I'm not really okay with the domain not being allowed to be registered. There should be a solution for this.

If I don't stand up for the freedom of expression for the lowliest of views, then I didn't stand for it at all.

Edited to add:

I posted it below, but I think it salient here - even if just for contrast. I am not white. I'm pretty sure these Nazis hate me. Given the chance, they'd probably harm me. Until they make an overt threat, or attempt, to do so - I am still not okay with depriving them of basic human rights.

Yes, I feel that strongly about the freedom of expression. They don't scare me. I will never live in fear, nor will I ask that someone's rights be taken away without due process. My principles apply to more than speech which agree with.

> Would you agree, then, that Internet access is now a basic human right?

I would neither disagree nor agree. Different theories of what a right is exist, and I don't believe it's a settled question enough to even claim that a $newer_thing is a right.

> If I don't stand up for the freedom of expression for the lowliest of views, then I didn't stand for it at all.

I understand this viewpoint. This is the "free speech maximalist" position. I disagree with it. I think there are bounds "beyond the usual pale" where no private institution should be asked to or forced to host it.

It may be that the proper solution is for the US government, as the duly appointed host of the Public Space by long-standing tradition, to create a Public Forum for such things.

The platform isn't being taken away, they can have their free speech hosted in some guys garage and accessible at x.x.x.x

I'm not accusing you of acting this way, but there are many "regulation is bad!" folks who now seem to think when it comes to hosting content on the internet, maybe it should be regulated so that private companies can't block people from doing basic things like registering a domain name if the company doesn't like it. This is the free market at work, and if the free market decides some speech is wrong, that's the free market America signed up for.

Presenting using only the IP address as a solution is intellectually dishonest. Additionally, I'm unsure of why you'd suggest there was a specific group of people and simultaneously assert that they are irrelevant to my comment.

Feel free to levy any accusations about me that you want. However, I think my comment history stands as evidence. I'm not asserting that this is a right. I'm asserting that it should be a right.

I think I expressly acknowledge that there's a difference, and I'm not looking for government intercession.

> Further, certain kinds of speech have never been considered protected: "fighting words", certain classes of harassment, fomenting seditious, the famous "fire!" in a crowded theater

You should really read this:

https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred...

and to a lesser extent, this:

https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

Also, legislatively, the fighting words doctrine is basically toothless today, if it's not entirely dead.

Worth noting though that punishments for use of speech are an entirely different thing than refusing to allow someone to speak. Again, I acknowledge that no one is beholden to DailyStormer, or any other nazi to hosting their site -- I get that, and it's not a decision that I particularly fault -- it just doesn't sit well with me that a website has apparently been searching for a host for some time now and can't find one.

Maybe that's a testament to how far we've come as society -- perhaps if I were a better human, that's how I'd see it, but I see it as troubling, regardless of the content.

> Anyway. "free speech" is not a uniform perfect right that applies maximally in all situations

Nor have I suggested that it is, but it seems you think you understand the subject better than you do, and I think it's an important enough right to be informed on.

Popehat tends to be a highly libertarian site. I would prefer not to be instructed by a highly libertarian site. It usually contains presuppositions that render it of limited use in thinking about the matter.

If you, however, have a link to a paper or op-ed put out by a reputable constitutional scholar in a reputable publication, e.g., Harvard Law Review, I would be more than happy to read such a thing.

> There's a distinction between the government repressing speech and private businesses refusing to give the speech-maker a platform.

So you do not support net neutrality, correct?

Not in the usual statement, no. I believe there's a compromise suitable for both technical reality (video makes huge demands on bandwidth, and bandwidth is finite) and neutral communication. Appropriate regulation, suitably delivered in a balance of philosophical care and technical care should solve the bulk of today's problems in this specific arena.

Preface: this is an honest question, stemming from my own life and current group of friends--the circumstances that frame the issue for me--it isn't intended as snark or a take-down or anything...

Do you have many friends right now who are people of color, or queer/gay, or even Jewish? How do you explain to them that you'd like to support the business that goes against the grain and hosts Nazi/white supremacist material?

I'm asking this because, right now, most of my friends are not white/hetero, and right now, they're all terrified of the US political climate for different reasons--the brown folks of being attacked (physically) by white supremacists and knowing the cops won't defend them (and in a lot of cases, the cops ARE the white supremacists), and the gays of being attacked by everyone. They're largely living in fear, and that's shitty.

I don't know if I could look them in the eye and say, "I've switched over to registrar X, because only they stood up for the Daily Stormer."

Actually, I know I couldn't say that to them, because what kind of asshole would I look like to my friends if I did that?

Again, this is my experience, but I'm curious how ours differ.

They would not be standing for the Daily Stormer, they would be standing for Free Speech.

The concept that allowed the struggles from minorities to be heard in the first place, and therefore to improve things tremendously for gay and black people.

We can see that this is not a given, for example Russia is starting to crack down on 'pro-gay' speech : http://thegroundtruthproject.org/russias-assault-on-gay-free...

But defending free speech is sometimes hard, because it also means letting people you disagree with speak freely even if it obvious to you they're spewing bullshit. You can't force them to stop, legally or otherwise, but you can expose their bullshit for what it is.

It is much harder to actually argue with someone (or 100 of people), especially when they're unreasonable/stupid, than to shut them down. However, the alternative is to have some kind of moral police to decide what is allowed or not, and force the literally unquestionable selected truth on everyone, which is much more dangerous overall in my opinion (see what could be done with Trump and climate change, or Putin with gay people).

I am distinctly not white. I am pretty much the last person you'd expect to see at a Klan meeting. In fact, I'm pretty sure they'd lynch me.

I don't like what they have to say, but I'm really disheartened that they aren't allowed to say it. Free speech should be a social ideal. The liberty of free speech is a wonderful thing, even if it is sometimes abhorrent speech.

Not everyone lets their friends shame them out of their principles.

I have friends who are women / Jewish / black / brown / trans / gay / queer, etc, and because I feel it's somewhat implied, no, I do not have any friends who are nazis, neo-nazis, white nationalists, white supremacists, etc. I do have a co-worker who voted for Trump though.

I think anyone who knows me already knows that I value speech a great deal, and I consider it to be almost certainly the greatest ideal that we have. It is, as almost all my friends have probably heard me say, the one thing America gets more right than anywhere else. I've had a couple of websites utterly ruined by the fact that I refused to impose censorship upon them.

I dearly understand the position that EasyDNS is in, and I'm sorry that they are in it. On the flip side, I'm glad that they decided to announce to the world that their 'Free speech' principles have limits instead of quietly refusing service. That they felt the need to broadcast the limits of their respect for free speech is, to my opinion, a good thing, just not in the way that they might have expected. I'm sure they'll get lots of business out of it. People often like to ally the businesses they deal with to their own moral interests, which is almost certainly why they posted it, and decidedly why I'm turned off by it. If I see another company who respects speech enough that they'd be willing to do business with nazis, then maybe I'm on to something... or maybe not. I dunno. I'd still expect it to be a good DNS service, of course.

I feel where people get mixed up on this is that while I can totally and fully condemn nazis doing nazi violence, I have zero problems allowing nazis to talk about whatever nazis talk about. Sure, it's up to whomever owns the business they have to decide whether or not they wish to do business with any particular person or company or whomever, but I dislike the precedent, because it's not too farfetched for me to imagine Antifa, Black Lives Matter, The NRA, or even the ACLU on the wrong side of that line if and when public opinion ever gets codified into law.

> they're all terrified

This is an odd phenomenon that's only happened in the last couple of years -- situations that folks would previously describe as "disheartening" or "disappointing" are now characterized as "terrifying". It's clever, really -- expressing concern over your physical well being (even when there isn't really any danger) is a cognitive kill-switch; physical safety is at the bottom of the hierarchy of needs, after all.

What is their fear based on?

If their friends are being physically assaulted for those reasons, then it makes sense for them to fear for themselves.

If their fear is based off of sensationalist news articles that significantly over-exaggerate the political climate and influence of various groups in order to generate advertising revenue/clicks, they should reconsider, even if it's difficult. There are far more articles about the KKK on the Internet than there are actual members of the KKK https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-w....

Those living in fear should try to rationalize about the probabilities of events happening to them based off of relevant statistics, not articles specifically designed to incite fear and anger.

you have the privilege (in the 'white' sense) to 'defend free speech' (or whatever your motivation may be). your friends who lack this privilege have to face the very real consequences (providing a platform for the daily stormer) of your support. if you are okay with your actions contributing to the ill being of your friends you're not a very good friend. maybe your principles are worth that but that's on you

Seems like companies are worried that if they host TDS, they'll just start harassing people again. The reason they lost their host in the first place wasn't free speech, it's because they were going after the family of Heather Hayes.

"Free speech" usually refers to government interference to speech, why should a business be required to make what they see as a bad business decision?

OP is saying they want to support a private business that voluntarily shares the government's mandate on free speech, even when they are not required to.

I'm saying it's a somewhat nonsensical viewpoint, imagine substituting another governmental protection. Do you support businesses that oppose quartering soldiers in the homes of citizens? "Free speech" applies to the rights granted/enforced/protected by government and businesses are operating on a different level than that.

The OP (and myself) consider freedom of speech is an ethical right that everyone should support. I live in the UK, we don't have a first amendment, but I still support freedom of speech.

The viral video in Baidu this week is of a student activist in Hong Kong who supports freedom of speech, and her speech (independence for Hong Kong) is explicitly illegal.

After we let people speak, and we dislike the speech, we can can then mock, disagree with, and poke fun at it, using our own freedom of speech.

"Free speech" as a concept extends far behind and beyond the First Amendment, which is the US statute you're alluding to.

There's nothing nonsensical about a person believing in absolute free speech as a core value and supporting businesses that share that value.

Just because you don't share a value doesn't make it "nonsensical".

Please share your definition of "absolute free speech", as the government has defined many exceptions and regularly limits the speech of citizens. Would your definition exclude those exceptions?

>Do you support businesses that oppose quartering soldiers in the homes of citizens?

Given the option I'd pick them over a alternative.

I suppose I'm still not conveying my point (or I'm misunderstanding the points of others).

Either way (pro-quartering/speech or anti-quartering/speech) a business has no impact on those rights. A business can't decide to quarter soldiers in your house. A business can't "restrict" free speech (unless that business is a complete monopoly in that market, a separate issue) as a user can easily find another registrar or start their own registrar to meet their needs.

Put another way, if your local theater won't allow you to show "Triumph of the Will", that's not a restriction on your speech, because you can start your own theater.

>Put another way, if your local theater won't allow you to show "Triumph of the Will", that's not a restriction on your speech, because you can start your own theater.

Legally we agree, but I can also choose to not support those businesses.

Countering your hypothetical with another hypothetical:

How would you feel if Twitter decided to ban all people of color from being able to use the platform?

Is that something you're totally cool with, because companies can't possibly affect your rights to free exercise of speech, or is it something you'd prefer they not do?

This comment seems unrelated to the parent comment, as the parent makes no mention to government interference nor to any imagined requirement for a business to serve others.

I understood "free speech" in the parent comment to mean an unwillingness to censor for any reason except those related to legal matters.

It is one thing to say "we won't accept any supremacist or terrorist organization" outright; it is another to say you'll take anyone and then actually subject them to an arbitrary and unpublished terms of service.

There's a big difference between the right to free speech and the principle of free speech.

Easydns has chosen to follow the Non-aggression principle which is a limited free speech moral stance.

https://www.easydns.com/terms-of-service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

OP simply wants to support those who truly believe in free speech. Not one who, in OPs opinion, has simply crowned themselves as free speech champions until pressured.

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aeasydns.com+free+spee...

For the same reason that there is net neutrality. So that the few unelected officials don't decide what the mass is allowed to see.

*always refers to government interference to speech

Are you sure you're not thinking of "the first amendment" rather than "free speech"?

Of course I'm talking about the first amendment, the only protection of free speech that exists in the USA. Any time someone brings up free speech and it's involving non-government entitites is just kidding themselves that they believe they have a "right" to express their views however they want.

So, because of the first amendment, we do have a "right" to express our views however we want. Because of the freedom of association, people and companies have the right to refuse to associate with us.

Irrespective of the first amendment, any given individual or company is free to respect the principle of free speech as much or as little as they like. I choose to respect the principle more than you. Thanks to free speech, we both have the express our disagreement. Because YCombinator respects free speech to some extent, they have furnish us a platform that allows us to publish these opinions.

Treating speech as a boolean is naive. There are a range of protections ranging from popular opinion, free speech devotees, all the way up to the first amendment.

> if you're trying to position yourself as "the free speech registrar", but draw the line at white supremacy because you're in an interracial marriage, then the signal I get from that is that you clearly don't cherish all free speech

Not really. Free speech works both ways. You can't fault Mark's logic here.

> Free speech works both ways

what does that even mean?

So the thing about free speech is https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment the first amendment means the government shouldn't be able to suppress what you say. That's all. Corporations aren't the government and shouldn't be held to the same standards.

This is such an intellectually lazy stance to take (I know, you thought you were being clever, but believe me this is the least clever thing to say about free speech).

1A doesn't have anything to do with it -- either free speech is a concept worth protecting, or it isn't. John Stuart Mill wrote at some length about it, and in particular about what happens when the population at large decides they don't like your speech.

Let's take this to its logical end -- let's say Joe wants to host a legal but repugnant site. Cloudflare doesn't want to protect it, ok; EasyDNS won't host it, sure; now let's say Comcast gets involved. They don't think Joe should have internet because he's espousing ideas they don't like, so they cut him off. Same with his mobile provider. Hell, what's to stop the local grocery store from banning him? Point being, Joe could _legally_ be forcibly removed from society for having opinions some people don't like.

This is an excellent point, it is something I worry about and something we've blogged about in our two previous posts about this topic.

It's one of the reasons I'm so wary when flashmobs try to force other businesses to dump specific clients.

It's one thing if your views or actions or so repugnant that all suppliers voluntarily refrain from doing business with you. Maybe one would reconsider their actions faced with that prospect?

But the phenomenon today, where flashmobs form and demand vendors sever their clients because the mob is demanding it and for the reason that the target is politically or ideologically at odds with the mob, that can play out exactly as you fear. Where does that stop?

This is one of those cases where there wasn't an easy answer, unfortunately. Dreamhost unknowingly wound up with a Dailystormer domain on their system last week and they got DDoS-ed into a crater. Also not good.

While technically correct, I don't understand how this has any bearing to my earlier response.

I explicitly state that I do not condemn EasyDNS for choosing to exercise their freedom of (dis)association in whatever manner they see fit. I would simply prefer to do business with someone whom I didn't have to guess at the moral convictions of, and obviate having to guess at whether or not the speech of users on a forum I host are crossing a line that I can't foresee, and would prefer to do business with a vendor where that wasn't something I had to worry about, even if it means having shitty neighbors.

I don't see anyone claiming that the government is preventing speech here. Just because it's legal for the company to deny their services, doesn't mean that said company can't be criticized for it.

You're correct, nobody is claiming that. I simply pointed out that "free speech" and saying whatever the hell you want are two different things. One is protected by law. One is not, and if I held an opinion you found morally wrong or vice versa, the other is not beholden to hear it, nor to serve the opinion holder if either party is a business. And I don't think that's bad.

Sure society may have prevailing moral standards, but the thing about having an opinion (which I think I'm proving with this comment) is we all, myself included, have forgotten that means we don't have to share it.

> Somewhat dichotomously, I agree with every position mark takes in the linked post, but at the same time, I'm quietly waiting to see where Daily Stormer ends up landing, so that I can start treating them as the 'real' bastions of free speech, and very likely start throwing them my business.

Please tell us what your business is and we'll be happy to boycott it too.

Do you boycott the ACLU because they support the KKK in free speech cases?

Or the EFF for calling out Google and Cloudflare for kicking Daily Stormer off their services?

A more just, peaceful and opportune world won't be attained through the use of guilt-by-association tactics. It's ill-advised to convert otherwise totally-understandable anger against credible perceived existential threats into the targeting of any non-agreeing entity. History shows that the only possible outcome to this is that, in scaring onlookers about the turmoil in their community, it hand-delivers the justification for the boycott's censure to the government on a silver platter. This doesn't mean that the onlookers are always morally correct or never complicit, but they are always useful for invoking 'security measures'..

Not to mention that you're also more likely to (all in the name of defense against the Daily Stormer) unwittingly target a group also targeted by the Daily Stormer if mere non-action justifies retaliation, because of the Daily Stormer's lack in number compared to the breadth in scope of conditions of the boycott, all applied at a popular level.

If you want to make someone fail in public, actively give them a pedestal so they might do it in front of an audience. The side effects of devoting so much to the excision of such a small cohort comes at a bigger cost to the bigger party - unrelenting pursuit of a couple guerrillas is ruinous.

You clearly don't get it.