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.

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.

Jackass pastor gets to say and do stupid things.

Rackspace gets to say "do it on your own box."

You get to say, "meh, kind of lame, Rackspace."

And life goes on.

And all I'm saying is that, under this circumstance, Rackspace gets the same freedom you and the pastor have, and this is as it should be.

I'm not too happy with Rackspace on this one.

"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"

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 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.

Who cares? If you let yourself be guided by whether or not the fringe dwellers will get 'inflamed' you've become part of the problem.

Rackspace made the right decision in this case, good for them. I wished the hosting provider of the cos would be just as pro-active.

But when Rackspace comes to the same conclusion, they're "making arbitrary decisions".

Really?

In this case, it seemed like keeping the website offline was Rackspace's goal, not "refusing service", which is very lame.

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.

Take the wedding photographer who was sued (and lost) for refusing to photograph a same-sex wedding: http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/357084.aspx

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sometimes sacred cows need to be eaten before people realize that religious bullshit is the root of many of the world's problems.

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.

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.