ODENTON

The founder of white supremacist website Stormfront said he can't bring it back online

86 posts in this topic

White supremacist website Stormfront.org is struggling to get back online.

Its founder, Ku Klux Klan chief Don Black, has complained that not only is the website down after domain registrar Network Solutions yanked the domain, he's unable to transfer Stormfront.org to another provider himself.

A domain search on Stormfront.org shows that the domain is "on hold," a status normally assigned to sites involved in legal disputes, non-payment, or when they're about to be deleted.

Stormfront is a forum-style site first registered online, according to Black, in January 1995. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Stormfront was the first major white supremacist website, and its members have been disproportionately responsible for mass killings.

http://www.businessinsider.com/stormfront-founder-don-black-cant-transfer-domain-2017-8

rough times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No surprise that a righty just can't get it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

some of donalds 'very fine people'......seems it's just fox news for him now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the majority of his members are on this board anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, EgyptKang said:

Well the majority of his members are on this board anyway.

Really?  Do you have some numbers for us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Baltimatt said:

Really?  Do you have some numbers for us?

Oh good Lord Matt... really? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, banner1124 said:

Oh good Lord Matt... really? :rolleyes:

Really, what?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ODENTON said:

White supremacist website Stormfront.org is struggling to get back online.

Its founder, Ku Klux Klan chief Don Black, has complained that not only is the website down after domain registrar Network Solutions yanked the domain, he's unable to transfer Stormfront.org to another provider himself.

A domain search on Stormfront.org shows that the domain is "on hold," a status normally assigned to sites involved in legal disputes, non-payment, or when they're about to be deleted.

Stormfront is a forum-style site first registered online, according to Black, in January 1995. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Stormfront was the first major white supremacist website, and its members have been disproportionately responsible for mass killings.

http://www.businessinsider.com/stormfront-founder-don-black-cant-transfer-domain-2017-8

rough times

I object to this. It is unjust that they cannot get access like everybody else. It is dangerous to suppress their speech. They cannot be contradicted and exposed for what they are if they cannot be heard. And they have as much right as anyone else to be heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Baltimatt said:

Really, what?  

you have to ask?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, hst2 said:

I object to this. It is unjust that they cannot get access like everybody else. It is dangerous to suppress their speech. They cannot be contradicted and exposed for what they are if they cannot be heard. And they have as much right as anyone else to be heard.

It is thought provoking. Does freedom of speech include access to the internet? I doubt it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 minutes ago, FatBoy said:

It is thought provoking. Does freedom of speech include access to the internet? I doubt it. 

My guess is it's about liability.  Now that these roaches have gotten some publicity, no ISP or domain register wants to be sued for spreading hate speech, inciting people to riot etc.  Just a hunch. 

Edited by ms maggie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Baltimatt said:

Really?  Do you have some numbers for us?

Why would you take up for it? You're not going to score any moderating points from anybody who matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ms maggie said:

My guess is it's about liability.  Now that these roaches have gotten some publicity, no ISP or domain register wants to be sued for spreading hate speech, exciting people to riot etc.  Just a hunch. 

That, and it's a competitive marketplace. Capitalism may just hurt the business of the hosting company that seeks to take them on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, FatBoy said:

It is thought provoking. Does freedom of speech include access to the internet? I doubt it. 

It seems similar to the bakers' issue. Does a company have the right to suspend service to someone based on ideological or moral objections.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ms maggie said:

My guess is it's about liability.  Now that these roaches have gotten some publicity, no ISP or domain register wants to be sued for spreading hate speech, exciting people to riot etc.  Just a hunch. 

I'm sure that's the motivation of the providers. And you can't blame them for that. Hst2 doesn't want them banned. I get his logic. I just don't see any protection for them in the constitution. There may be other 'equal access' laws I don't know about.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, hst2 said:

I object to this. It is unjust that they cannot get access like everybody else. It is dangerous to suppress their speech. They cannot be contradicted and exposed for what they are if they cannot be heard. And they have as much right as anyone else to be heard.

Dang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, FatBoy said:

I'm sure that's the motivation of the providers. And you can't blame them for that. Hst2 doesn't want them banned. I get his logic. I just don't see any protection for them in the constitution. There may be other 'equal access' laws I don't know about.   

Wouldn't that open up a lot of doors? Can electricity companies choose not to power the building running a web server that spews hate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rael said:

It seems similar to the bakers' issue. Does a company have the right to suspend service to someone based on ideological or moral objections.

 

1 minute ago, Rael said:

Wouldn't that open up a lot of doors? Can electricity companies choose not to power the building running a web server that spews hate?

Is 'hate speech' protected? I think that would be the argument. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FatBoy said:

 

Is 'hate speech' protected? I think that would be the argument. 

 

Define hate speech. If I am against affirmative action does that make me a racist? 

Slippery slopes when we start constricting the first amendment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, EnochRoot said:

Why would you take up for it? You're not going to score any moderating points from anybody who matters.

Huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rael said:

Define hate speech. If I am against affirmative action does that make me a racist? 

Slippery slopes when we start constricting the first amendment. 

I'm not going to argue about this. I don't care if those radicals are on the internet or not. 

If you want the ISPs to be forced to host them, I respect your opinion. But, it's only an opinion. The courts may end up having to decide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FatBoy said:

I'm not going to argue about this. I don't care if those radicals are on the internet or not. 

If you want the ISPs to be forced to host them, I respect your opinion. But, it's only an opinion. The courts may end up having to decide. 

I don't think I have ever had an "argument" with you. I thought it was a discussion. I agree the courts will probably have to get involved. As you said it was thought provoking. Does a company have a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason? Obviously not, as things like race and nationality are protected. If ideas are not a protected class, who decides which ideas are protected and which are ok to discriminate against? In this instance, the morality of the issue is quite easy. Will it be for the next slightly incrementally less objectionable belief? Who gets to draw the line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Rael said:

Define hate speech. If I am against affirmative action does that make me a racist? 

Slippery slopes when we start constricting the first amendment. 

It's not a first amendment issue.  The govt isn't restricting these people, which is all the first amendment addresses.

It's equal access, equal protection under the law I would guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rael said:

I don't think I have ever had an "argument" with you. I thought it was a discussion. I agree the courts will probably have to get involved. As you said it was thought provoking. Does a company have a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason? Obviously not, as things like race and nationality are protected. If ideas are not a protected class, who decides which ideas are protected and which are ok to discriminate against? In this instance, the morality of the issue is quite easy. Will it be for the next slightly incrementally less objectionable belief? Who gets to draw the line?

FWIW, I did not agree with the bakery decision. The gay couple getting married had lots of other options.

But that doesn't mean I would agree the KKK should not have access to the internet.  

I'll leave it to the constitutional scholars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ms maggie said:

It's not a first amendment issue.  The govt isn't restricting these people, which is all the first amendment addresses.

It's equal access, equal protection under the law I would guess. 

Fair enough. Basically the same argument as with the baker and the gay weddings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now