Rackspace Shuts Down Quran-Burning Church's Sites 1695
theodp writes "In response to a complaint, Rackspace has shut down the websites of the Dove World Outreach Center, a small 50-member church which has received national and international criticism for a planned book burning of the Quran on the anniversary of the 9-11 attacks. The center 'violated the hate-speech provision of our acceptable-use policy,' explained Rackspace spokesman Dan Goodgame. 'This is not a constitutional issue. This is a contract issue,' said Goodgame, who added he did not know how long it had hosted the church's sites. Not quite the same thing, but would Kurt Westergaard's cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad also violate Rackspace's AUP? How about Christopher Hitchens' Slate articles? Could articles from one-time Rackspace poster child The Onion pass muster?"
well done (Score:5, Insightful)
awesome, it's nice to see a company with a bit of a spine, freedom of speech is one thing, but no-one has to provide a stage.
Re:well done (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you be saying the same thing if it were the phone company disconnecting their phone service? It is funny how the ISP's and Hosting companies want all that common carrier protection right up until they do something like this, and then don't want to play the neutral party obligation that goes along with being a common carrier.
Re:well done (Score:5, Informative)
It's a webhoster, not an ISP.
Re:well done (Score:5, Informative)
Rackspace != ISP.
Rackspace is a website hosting company.
Re:well done (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lunatic? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no question of rights or freedom here. This is about a guy being an absolute asshole and other people telling him that he should stop being an asshole.
Re:Lunatic? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no question of rights or freedom here. This is about a guy being an absolute asshole and other people telling him that he should stop being an asshole.
He is, of course, completely free to ignore them.
Don't you think at least one person thought even Ghandi was an asshole?
Doing what you believe is right isn't necessarily a popularity contest.
Re:Lunatic? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lunatic? (Score:5, Insightful)
He's just burning some books. Our soldiers are being attacked because they are occupying peoples' homes and supporting a new government they don't all accept. The argument that burning these books would put our soldiers in more danger is not only incorrect, but irrelevant as here we are...giving up our rights and freedoms because we fear the terrorists. Another victory for fundies.
Talk about gross oversimplification. Our soldiers are being attacked because the people they displaced from power want it back. Oh, by the way, the people we displaced from power are Islamic Extremists, who deny basic education to women, recruit children into their armies, and are all around bad guys. The "regular" people of Afghanistan are all too happy to be out from the thumb of the Taliban. Not that our actions [csmonitor.com] have been overtly friendly with civilians as of late, but that's the cost of a guerrilla war [wikipedia.org].
Re:Lunatic? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a pity you couldn't manifest all of this moral outage when we were funding and arming those Islamic extremists to fight the Rooskies.
Re:Lunatic? (Score:4, Insightful)
Me personally? Well, considering I was in middle school at the time...
Now if we're talking about "Me" as in Americans, that's something different. History is replete with mea culpa moments like that. In fact, two of the biggest threats to US interests were aided into power by America (Afghanistan and Iran). The same lens that we use to pick apart history can't see as well into the future. What's your solution?
Re:Lunatic? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's your solution?
Never get involved in a land war in Asia?
Re:Lunatic? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Lunatic? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does that make it unpalatable to Americans? You betcha.
That's not actually the biggest problem. The problem with crappy soldiers like that is:
1) You get the general population against you.
2) Genocide nowadays is not such a viable candidate if you need to trade with lots of other countries and their support. And the survivors will "never" forgive you, it'll take many generations.
they give in to the urge to behave like animals.
There's the problem, it's not a shortage of soldiers, it's too many bad soldiers. You CANNOT afford to keep shooting the wrong people/targets.
It takes very brave and professional soldiers to be careful to err on the safe side and not shoot people when their own lives are under threat.
You screw up, next thing you know an entire village is now against you. They may not say to your face, but they now want you out. Previously they might have been neutral. After your screw up, building bridges etc isn't going to win them so easily. You are foreigners, if both foreigners and locals are screwing up, most will prefer the locals.
Screw up enough times and you lose the entire country. I think the US has lost Afghanistan and it's just a matter of time. The morale of the Taliban is higher than that of the US soldiers. Their soldiers take their losses better, they believe in what they are doing, they have supplies and support, they now control most parts of Afghanistan even if not officially.
It's easier for the Taliban to not make mistakes, when in doubt just shoot the guys in the US uniform instead of some brown guy in a shalwar kameez.
Such wars are not easy to win. In my country (Malaysia) they moved many entire villages to new villages ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency [wikipedia.org] ). Foreigners did come in to fight and they did an overall good job, yes there were mistakes, but they were definitely not making trophies out of civilians.
The US can't fight it the way it fought Vietnam. They lost that war. They wouldn't have won. Soldiers in such wars cannot be trigger happy idiots. You need soldiers who would behave professionally.
Re:Lunatic? (Score:5, Insightful)
What we are saying is that he is a fucking lunatic for exercising this right. Yes it will act as a recruiting sergeant for the Taliban (who must be laughing their heads off about this). Yes it will be used by demagogues to whip up mobs to attack Christians in many countries. Yes it is really just fucking rude and unnecessary.
If we were talking about cartoons of Mohammed then I might agree with you - there is an important principle about parody there - but this guy has just picked the most offensive thing he could do to the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, and is then going ahead and doing it. Irrespective of any arguments from common sense, principled tolerance, or basic good manners.
Lunatic is too kind - it suggests he is not responsible for his actions. This man is a crazy evil shit.
Re:well done (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:well done (Score:5, Insightful)
I would have more respect for them if they could at least ADMIT their cowardice and just admit that they're caving because they're afraid of violent retaliation. Instead they hide behind "religious respect" and try to convince themselves that they're not just a bunch of pussies.
Re:well done (Score:5, Insightful)
This idiot plans to insult 1.3 billion people, 1.29recuring billion of which have never done him any harm. He doesn't have anything to say, he just wants to stand on a platform and insult them.
Sod him. He has certain rights under the US constitution, and he cannot be stopped from going through with this if he wants to. But no one is under any obligation whatsoever to help him. Personally I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire, let alone provide him web hosting services.
Re:well done (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps the 1.29 billion who have never done any harm should simply dismiss this guy as a lunatic and not get their panties all up in a bunch being offended over such a stupid action.
I'm a christian and an American, yet I don't get offended when I see people burning bibles or American flags; I look at them like they're idiots. Sure, the symbolism of their action is bad, but it's still just a book - it's nothing I'm going to lose sleep over.
As an example (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at South Park. They have completely and totally slammed a number of religions, drug them through the mud. They had Catholic priests with little boys on leashes as sex slaves (attending a party for Satan), they had a whole episode mocking the Mormon beliefs complete with a brilliant song, they've slammed the Scientologists a couple times. None of these have faced any censorship. However they tried to show Mohammad. Not even insult him, just how his picture, and it got censored.
There is no explanation other than fear. It's clear Viacom has no problem with mocking religions in general. Why would they? Those episodes are popular. However for some reason Islam is off limits. The only reason is because they are scared. Muslims threaten violence at the drop of a hat, and they just don't want to be a target.
It it pure cowardice. We stand behind our freedoms... until someone says they'll hurt us, then we cave.
Re:As an example (Score:5, Insightful)
We stand behind our freedoms... until someone says they'll hurt us, then we cave.
Which is why we are now in the process of losing them.
Re:As an example (Score:4, Interesting)
It it pure cowardice. We stand behind our freedoms... until someone says they'll hurt us, then we cave.
And this is how the terrorists genuinely win. If we're no longer America, what the hell are we??
Re:well done (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. And the funny thing is, people like this pastor who provoke Muslims despite receiving death threats are called "Islamophobes." The real Islamophobes are the ones who are, you know, afraid of Muslims. Pretty ridiculous use of the word these days.
First host! (Score:4, Insightful)
Really though, bigots, use Linode. They don't have a policy like this.
This is the problem with Hate Speech Laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Sooner or later you get into the question, do people have the right to dislike other groups of people?
Re:This is the problem with Hate Speech Laws (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this a matter of hate speech laws? There's no law involved here, only the Acceptable Use Policy of Rackspace. It's not a matter of whether people have the right to dislike other groups of people. It's a matter of whether you can be punished for breaking a contractual obligation not to host stuff that violates the acceptable use policy.
Re:This is the problem with Hate Speech Laws (Score:4, Insightful)
True, but the root of these acceptable use policies that started many years ago with EULA's that stated things like this word processor can't be used to generate hate speech. All goes back to this war on freedom of thought that the hate speech laws so clearly represent. Keep in mind I am not saying anything about the merits of their position, just that using catch all contract clauses that have came about by a cultural lapse in judgement that thinks if you make it so no one can legally have a negative opinion then all will be well.
Re:This is the problem with Hate Speech Laws (Score:5, Insightful)
It might not be laws, but it DOES violate the spirit of free speech.
No it doesn't. Consider:
A man knocks on your front door and asks if he can use your front lawn as a sitting area for talking to passersby. You agree, on the condition that he doesn't cause a commotion or damage your property. He proceeds to set up loudspeakers, shouts opinions with which you do not agree, riles up a crowd, and so on. Is it suppressing free speech if you kick him off your lawn? Of course not -- your front lawn is your private property, and he's only allowed to use it as long as you permit it.
Rackspace is in exactly that situation. They have private property -- servers -- which they rent to people who come up to them and ask for hosting. Rackspace agrees to provide servers for those people, provided they don't e.g. engage in hate speech using their services. When those people violate that agreement, they no longer have the right to use Rackspace's private property, and Rackspace is not suppressing anyone's freedom of speech by kicking them off their servers, any more than you would be suppressing that man's freedom of speech by kicking him off your lawn.
Re:This is the problem with Hate Speech Laws (Score:4, Informative)
Oh. I'm sorry - you didn't know? Canada does not have freedom of speech _and_ Canada does have laws against hate speech. Clearly, Canada has a world-wide reputation for being oppressive, right?
I'm just sayin'.
Re:This is the problem with Hate Speech Laws (Score:5, Informative)
Did you know there was a Greek Orthodox that's nearby and destroyed when WTC fell on it? Do you know that they haven't been given their permit to rebuild but the city has given one to the imam? They've been trying since it was destroyed.. There's that double standard again. How long do we have to put up with it?
Did you know that the Greek Orthodox church has been allowed to rebuild the entire time? Did you know they are trying to broker a better deal with the port authority to get a new, bigger building? Did you know they turned down free land and $60 million because it wasn't enough? Did you know the port authority finally took the deal off the table because the church kept demanding more?
The church could have been rebuilt years ago if they were willing to keep their original location and pay for it themselves.
Re:This is the problem with Hate Speech Laws (Score:5, Informative)
Did you know that the area the world trade center was built in used to be called, "Little Syria" because it was the part of manhattan where the most muslims lived? There are plenty of mosques, and plenty of muslims in that area, and it's not a new thing.
Get over yourself. If they want to build a mosque next to a titty bar, in an old outlet store building, why the hell should you care?
Re:This is the problem with Hate Speech Laws (Score:4, Insightful)
There's that double standard again. How long do we have to put up with it?
Yes! This!! Very, very this!
This is precisely why I support the man's actions in doing it. We are America, the land of the free. The Muslims have the right to build their Mosque on property they own, and the Christians have the right to set fire to books that they own, and NO ONE in our government has ANY RIGHT to interfere with ANY OF IT. Any public figure weighing in against any of these activities should be impeached immediately. 'Freedom' means freedom from opinion as well. Those public servants surrendered their right to impune others for their protected speech the moment they were sworn in.
This is about freedom, and if you're against it, you clearly do not understand WHY we have the rights we do. Further I put forward that if you're in favor of Obama going on TV against it, then you'd likewise support laws against it, and if that is the case then you should genuinely be ashamed of who the terrorists have made you become. If you oppose freedom of religion and protected speech, then you don't deserve either.
Islam, the only religion we treat above criticism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Islam, the only religion we treat above critici (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Islam, the only religion we treat above critici (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes there is. Fear. Cowardice. Very few are left with the spine to stand up and say that Islam is NOT above criticism. Even show a picture of Muhammad and television networks run away, newspapers cower in fear, the citizens of the most powerful country in the world turn into a bunch of scared children--unwilling to make even the most token effort to defend one of the defining principles of the Constitution that founded modern democracy. People who would have no problem with someone burning a flag or Bible become apologists for repression in the name of religion. And they don't do it because of "respecting religion." Let's be honest. They do it because they're COWARDS.
Re:Islam, the only religion we treat above critici (Score:4, Informative)
Think of it as performance art. Bibles get burned all the time, often in Islamic states. Does that cause major diplomatic incidents? Flag burning? Christian street protests? Presidents getting involved? Does the Vatican or your minister down the street start pronouncing death sentences on people? But merely threatening to burn a Koran causes all of these things to happen: death threats, diplomatic incidents, massive street protests. And we're not talking about the actions of a few crazy extremists and terrorists here, we are talking about the actions of thousands of Muslim clerics and politicians and citizens in Islamic nations. Jones doesn't need to actually go through with the Koran burning, he has already made his point.
Mainstream Islam, as practiced in the major Islamic nations around the world, has an atrocious human rights record and needs to reform, just like the medieval Christian church needed to reform. And just look at what happened with Luther: he called the Pope the "anti-Christ", the Pope excommunicated him (which amounted to a fatwa), and a friendly state sheltered and protected him. Causing offense ("trolling") and conflict are an intrinsic part of reform and social change.
As for supposedly moderate Muslims, if they don't take the burning of the Koran by a redneck pastor in the middle of nowhere in stride, they aren't so moderate. Part of being moderate is that you realize that other people have different beliefs and simply don't respect your religion, and that that's OK.
Re:Islam, the only religion we treat above critici (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't criticism. This is trolling, and all it will achieve is angering muslims who didn't have anything to do with 9/11 and help those who did.
Well, if those angry Muslims exercise their free speech rights in retaliation, then we have started a discourse.
But that's not what you're worried about with 'angry muslims', is it? You're expecting violence. In short you're going as far as condoning the violence by suppressing the man's rights, because you're afraid of it.
Kinda puts the word 'terror' in 'terrorism', doesn't it?
Can the media stop poking the wasp's nest, please! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can the media stop poking the wasp's nest, plea (Score:4, Funny)
The worst thing about this is that Rev. Terry Jones has sullied the good name of Terry Jones, the ex-Python member.
It is a classic question... (Score:5, Interesting)
...how does a tolerant society deal with intolerance?
There are many inconsistent and hypocritical ways of answering this question. I'm not sure there are any good answers.
This "church" is doing to tolerance what Gödel did to mathematics -- showing its internal contradictions.
Why should a tolerant society care? (Score:5, Insightful)
These guys are doing -nothing- of consequence. The Koran comes off of a web press in the tens of thousands, just like any other book these days. So all they are doing ultimately is making a bit more business for some printer. It isn't as though they are destroying some special, ancient Koran that has historical and cultural significance, they are just burning a mass produced book. If they can't see the futility of that, well then that makes them the retards.
Is it offensive? Probably but then when did anyone have the right not to be offended? I see offensive shit all the time out there, particularly against religions. South Park has been positively brutal to the Catholics, the Mormons, the Scientologists, etc. They have been some of the funniest episodes (the Mormon one kills me every time) but I'm sure they offended the hell out of a bunch of people. Tough. Nobody says you have the right to go through life and not be offended.
So these guys want to go offend Muslims. Big deal, who cares? Let them.
Tolerance means letting people do what they want, more or less. There has to be limits, you can't harm others, but there's no reason you can't offend them. Also real tolerance would be on the part of Muslims says "Ya knock yourselves out. Retards," and just ignoring the whole thing.
Read Before Burning (Score:5, Insightful)
Reading a book from cover to cover should be a prerequisite to burning it.
Satire (Score:4, Insightful)
If you can explain to me how burning someone else's holy book qualifies as satire or parody then I'll accept the equivalence with Westergaard's case.
This situation is closer to a company like Rackspace choosing not to host the KKK's web site. Doesn't exactly make Rackspace a paragon of free speech, but there no shortage of service providers out there who are willing to host the site... most at a premium that covers the inevitable hack attacks.
Re:Satire (Score:5, Informative)
Have you seen the videos of the Muslim protests against this? They're burning all sorts of things in response to just the announcement of the Koran burning.
Re:Satire (Score:5, Insightful)
Step back and take a breath. Look at the sequence of events. Think. This is about provocation, retaliation, and the nature of tolerance. One man threatens to do something but has not actually done anything yet, thousands "respond" by actually doing that thing first.
The parent asked how this can be satire, so...
Re:Satire (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can explain to me how burning someone else's holy book qualifies as satire or parody then I'll accept the equivalence with Westergaard's case.
I'm sure burning someone else's holy book would be vandalism, destruction of property, and a crime.
However, burning your own copy of a different religion's holy book, would just be destroying your own property, which isn't harming anyone else. And making fun of religious folks in general, and some people's strange notion that destroying one copy of a book is somehow scorning their beliefs.
If a religion wants to prevent people from burning their book, then they should distribute the book only to their religious institutions, under requirement that special agreements be assigned to protect their copy of the book from vandalism, restrictions against distribution, etc.
Important distinctions (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) The constitution is binding on the *government*, not private parties. Rackspace may deny service to anyone, just as Dove World Outrage Center may.
(2) There's a legal and moral distinction between being insulting or derogatory speech (Westergaard, Onion) and inciting violence (Dove).
(3) "Clear and present danger" is a recognized exception to free speech. Don't yell fire in a crowded theatre, etc. The *predictable* result of Dove's action is a sharply increased risk of retaliatory attacks killing US soldiers.
IMO any of these three reasons alone is sufficient to say that Rackspace's action is no affront to free speech. In combination, they're sufficient for me to say that anyone who protests Rackspace's actions more than Dove's is exhibiting a lack of understanding and/or perspective so serious that it's the domain of psychiatry rather than philosophy. I say that as a card-carrying monthly-dues-paying ACLU member, by the way. The actual advancement of civil liberties is only harmed by such ridiculous positions.
Re:Important distinctions (Score:4, Informative)
"Clear and present danger" is most emphatically NOT a recognized exception to free speech. Schenck was overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The standard is "imminent lawless action." Speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. This was further clarified in Hess v. Indiana, which found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action [wikipedia.org]
Diversity doesn't work (Score:4, Insightful)
Each philosophy (including all religions) thinks it is the right one.
Two or more cannot coexist in the same space.
People have the right to be intolerant... because without intolerance, they allow themselves to be assimilated.
RackSpace made a stupid error by getting involved in a political issue. Now people will expect more webhosts to do this, and they will waste many more hours trying to figure out what is and is not "hate speech."
Remember, if you're criticizing a majority (whites, Christians, Jews/Judaism, conservatives, men, heterosexuals) it's OK, but if you're criticizing a minority (African-Americans, Muslims/Islam, homosexuals, polyamorists) it's a "hate crime" (NewSpeak for unsanctioned thought).
In other news... (Score:4, Insightful)
...the government announced IDIOT, the International Determination of Islamic Offense Team. The team will be charged with analyzing any and all public actions with awareness factors above 0.5 Lohans (note: the Lohan has now superseded the Hilton as a media awareness unit of measurement by NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology), and determine at what level the Religion of Peace will be moved to violence.
The rough first cut ratings are:
G = General discontent and hate speech directed at the West
R = Rioting and demonstrations
B = Burning of American flags, French cars and other related items
M = Murder of Westerners and the members of other, less peaceful religions
T = Planned acts of terrorism
W = Planned acts of war
X = Global thermonuclear devastation
Z = Zombie hordes (The IDIOTs failed to fully explain this one. Inquiries are pending)
We DO condemn radical Islam (Score:4, Interesting)
Uhm.
To the people who say 'Why doesn't the government condemn radical Islam?" , the fact is, we do.
The US Government, like all good government, speaks mostly through action rather than words in condemning radical Islam. Think about it.
-Supporting dictatorships in lieu of radical Islamic Groups (The US's support for Pakistan, and propping up the Shah of Iran)
-Supporting a dictatorship's war against a theocracy run by radical Muslims (Iran/Iraq War)
-Targetted killings of radical Islamicists in Iraq and Afghanistan
-Huge bounties on the heads of radical Islamicists (The hunt for Osama Bin Laden)
-Wholesale invasions of countries and the dissolution of governments that support radical Islam (Invasion of Afghanistan and the fight against the Taliban)
-Supporting moderate Muslim governments over radical ones (Visits to Egypt, funding for Pakistan and Iraq)
In fact, the American military's main goal over the past 9 years has been the suppression, destruction and dissolution of radical Islam over the years. Pretty much every armed force from the Army proper, to the CIA has been devoted to taking radical Islam to task.
***
Paster Terry Jones is acting like an asshat and ruining our work against radical Islam. THAT'S why we're condemning him.
When Muslims burn bibles, the Western world DOES get upset. Infact, we get so upset we make lists of the incidents and eventually take armed actions against groups that go too far. Obviously we hope that the local governments take care of things, but do you think that the US is so naive? We have diplomats and ambassadors all over the world busy 'nudging' governments whenever such actions occur.
Radical Islam taking action against blasphemers isn't a threat, it's a fact. We have armed men and women protecting us so we CAN do blasphemous acts safely. But doing them makes their job harder. It's just like you don't randomly provoke local gang-members or mafia-men: it's well within your rights to do, but is it SMART? No. Can the government protect you from retaliation? They'll TRY, but whether they'll succeed is a different matter.
Radical Muslims, like any radical members of a religion, are generally brainwashed ignorant thugs. Pastor Terry Jones is a radical Christian. Why should we treat him any differently? We should condemn his sentiments and desires, and make sure to take action in case things turn violent.
we live in interesting times (Score:5, Insightful)
when the trolls, from the christian world, or the muslim world, or the liberal world or the conservative world, are the ones driving the conversation
the vast majority of christians, muslims, liberals and conservatives are simply good people. but the ones who make the headlines and drive every subject of conversation are the same sort of people you see with a -1 rating on slashdot: the fucking useless trolls
i swear, international relations and domestic political commentary needs something like a slashdot rating system
let the trolls loose on slashdot, with no ratings to tell the difference between something you should read and something you should ignore, and what do you get?: a flooding out of a sane rational commons that anyone with good intent wants to be a part of. you drive good people away, you reward the most useless sort of asshole: the destruction of slashdot
likewise, when the lunatic asshole muslims and the lunatic asshole christians are the ones who set the news headlines aflame and drive the topic of discussion, you get the destruction of the whole fucking world: no civility, no understanding, empty useless seething emotions, until somebody sets off the powder keg. i weep for our children
Re:Hey, lets burn some books!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hey, lets burn some books!!! (Score:5, Informative)
No. I keep seeing this repeated, but it's absolutely not true. Constitutionally-protected free speech only applies to the government's interference in forms of speech. Free speech refers to lack of any interference. If a lynchmob attacks the idiot ranting on street corner, he is not able to exercise free speech. If someone can not publish a book critical of Islam because an Ayatollah will put a fatwa on him and someone will kill him if he does, then it's not free speech.
That Voltaire quote that everyone trots out says that he would 'defend to the death your right to say it' not that he would 'defend to your death the right for the government not to interfere with you.'
The entire point of free speech is to allow people to say unpopular things. Personally, I think that burning Muslim and Jewish[1] books is a pretty idiotic statement to make, outclassed in stupidity only by the Muslims threatening violence if he does it. Burning books harms no one - it is simply an expression of an opinion. He has just as much of a right to do it as I have to call him an asshat for doing it.
When it comes to Rackspace, the situation is more difficult. As a private company, they have the legal right to refuse to provide a service, but what happens if everyone does? It is not possible to publish information on the web without using some privately owned infrastructure. Does this mean that it's okay to stifle free speech on the Internet, as long as it's done via corporate collusion rather than government mandate? In the US, the legal answer is yes.
Of course, it's also within the rights of Rackspace's customers to decide to move elsewhere. If I did business with them, this would cause me to notify them that I was leaving at the end of the contract period. My hosting provider will object if I use their service to do anything illegal, but beyond that places no additional restrictions. I would be very nervous about using a provider that would pull your account because your posted material that was in some way objectionable to some arbitrary group.
[1] Yes, he's also burning the Talmud, but apparently we only care that he's burning the Qur'an. Oddly enough, he's not burning any books from non-Abrahamic religions.
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
The first amendment prohibits the government from suppressing speech, not Rackspace.
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't mention the First Amendment. He mentioned freedom of speech. The First Amendment is the codified protection against government intrusion on that particular freedom. It doesn't apply to private actions.
But that doesn't mean that private actions can't limit freedom of speech. This private action decidedly does - it's a decision to limit expression based on its content. The fact that this ISP has both the legal right (assuming the contract is in order) and, to many, the moral right to do this does not mean that the decision does not limit free speech.
We accept limits on freedoms all the time, because we have to balance the rights of some against the rights of others. In this case, the two rights at issue are freedom of contract and freedom of speech. I suspect that the former supersedes the latter for most people in this case because: (1) contracts are voluntarily entered into; (2) there are other web-hosting alternatives available to the church. I suspect that were the second factor not present - say in the event of a monopoly or oligarchy of web hosting providers who all restricted particular content - quite a few people might consider restricting freedom of contract to prohibit certain types of content-based restrictions in web hosting service agreements.
The question isn't whether this limits freedom of speech. The question is whether this is a proper limitation on freedom of speech. A follow on question would be, if this is improper, should it be allowed under the law.
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot moderation violates our founding ideals. You shouldn't use slashdot.
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Chill the fuck out.
The church can still burn the Queran if it wants, it can still spread its message if it wants, and it can still say whatever it wants...just not on a Rackspace server.
How is this any different than being kicked out of a store for repeatedly saying kike or nigger? You're welcome to say it outside the store...just not in it.
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue is more complex than both you and those simply saying, "the First Amendment only applies to government" are describing it. Private actors do not have a duty to facilitate the free speech of others. This principle is accepted by essentially everyone - I've yet to meet a person who thinks I should have to allow a sign on my front yard for a candidate I don't support.
The question is where the refusal of a private actor to facilitate speech crosses the line from perfectly reasonable (as in the yard-sign example) to violation of founding ideals. An explanation of why this instance crosses (or doesn't cross) that line holds much promise for enlightening discussion. A bald statement that doesn't even seem to acknowledge the complex nature of balancing rights does not. The freedom to contract can support a host of other freedoms, including the freedom not to support speech antithetical to one's ideals. That's not something to be hand-waved away with platitudes, but to be addressed with serious discussion that does not assert conclusions as starting premises.
Also, it absolutely does matter if it's legal. While that's not the end of the discussion, it certainly has a place in the discussion. For example, if it is legal, should it be made illegal? If it's not legal, should it be made legal?
These issues are complex. Blatant oversimplification - in either direction - doesn't help matters.
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
When most people talk about free speech, they're talking about the principle of free speech, not the legal right. Rackspace, as an American company, should endorse the principle of free speech. Once there's widespread apathy towards free speech in the public, it's a matter of time before legal free speech is also whittled away.
Not Applicable (Score:5, Insightful)
Right... except you're not guaranteed the principle of free speech by anything. Also, even if the principle of free speach has any backing, Rackspace is not obliged to broadcast it for you. Their version of free speech is to not be required to echo your speech.
Re:Not Applicable (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, even if the principle of free speach has any backing, Rackspace is not obliged to broadcast it for you.
If a company does something that I consider wrong, saying that they aren't legally obliged to do the right thing, doesn't rate as a defense of their behaviour to me.
Re:Free speech is not a right (Score:5, Insightful)
Rothbard's argument is relevant, but not sufficient. There's a huge difference between saying that we should consider this from a propertarian viewpoint and that we should consider it only from that viewpoint. Rothbard crosses that line by the time he uses the word "simply" in the second sentence of your quote. As one poster has already pointed out, this situation is complex, and oversimplifying doesn't give meaningful input.
How would Murray Rothbard's argument address any apparent conflict when property is held in common? Do I gain the right to shout fire in a crowded public venue funded from tax dollars? Your Rothbard quote is arguing that all public property is criminal, because all rights can only be sustained where there is private ownership. But, in the US, it took a whole series of special laws in every state's legal codes for theatre owners to gain the right to be treated as though a contract existed without actually having printed one and gained signatures. A right of implied contract exists only because of specialised laws (a privilege or private law, the very word privilege coming from the Latin roots 'Privus' (Private) + 'Lex' (law)) intended to protect theater owners.
Rothbard actually is arguing for the unlimited power of the government to create or destroy rights. How else can the right of contract support all these other rights, particularly when, in his own example, a contract doesn't exist physically, but exists only by government fiat. At the same time, he's arguing against himself, holding that same government fiat is insufficent to grant another right by any other means than through property rights. Since the real US constitution is most emphatically not about how the government grants rights, but how it must rather respect them, neither facet of his argument really sheds more light than heat.
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
First, Free Speech only applies to the government laws. Read About It [wikipedia.org]: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...
It does not apply to contract law!
Second, the Church is free to get their website hosted on a million other web hosting companies. They just need to read the terms of service beforehand.
--jeffk++
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Informative)
whoa there cowboy, network neutrality has NOTHING to do with free speech laws.
Network neutrality only means that a network operator should treat packets the same regardless of source, meaning no "preferred service" to YouTube or degraded service for break.com. The content of the packets, the actual speech part, plays no part at all in this. Rackspace is also not a network provider, they're a hosting service.
Network Neutrality is about commerce (Score:5, Informative)
No, its not. Network neutrality is about promoting free competition in online content businesses by prohibiting network access providers from leveraging their market power in the access area to stifle competition in content. Its about commerce, not expression.
It certainly is not about prohibiting content hosting companies (whether or not they also happen to be ISPs) from discriminating in the content they choose to host.
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Informative)
I'm unaware of the part of the discussion where content has been specifically brought up, but that may be a failure of imagination. Who exactly is concerned that ISPs are analyzing packets for content regardless of their source?
Definitely? I could be wrong, but as far as I know Rackspace is a hosting provider and nothing more. Where do they provide ISP services? What type of network services do they provide?
Network neutrality ONLY concerns itself with getting packets from the server to the user, meaning the ISPs. The server and user themselves are not the focus of network neutrality.
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Informative)
Wow.
RACKSPACE IS NOT AN ISP. How much more clear can I be? Rackspace is a HOSTING PROVIDER. THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS AN ISP.
AT&T IS AN ISP.
THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
You claimed that Rackspace is also an ISP, but when I asked you to identify what ISP services they provide, you didn't answer. The reason for that is probably that they are not an ISP.
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
I am so confused over this.
First up, Racksapce is a host, not an ISP. There are millions of web hosting companies out there, and a good number of them are known specifically for being ok with hosting anything you want. If rackspace says "nope, we disagree with your statements enough that we refuse to do business with you" it is THEM expressing their freedom of speech, not suppressing the church's.
If you wrote, say, a book on evolution, and I used force (as rackspace did) to prevent you from doing this, surely you'd agree I'm suppressing your free speech. The same is going on here.
No, your analogy doesn't work. A better analogy would be the church posting signs on one of those bulletin boards that some bars have for upcoming events and the bar taking it down as they don't think that it is appropriate and thus expressing their right to free speech by not broadcasting the church's message.
An argument could be made if an ISP starting blocking them, as they are subsidized by the government, and often there is no real choice in ISPs for many people. If their ISP drops them I would take issue with it. However, Rockspace isn't an ISP, they are a web host. There are options for web hosts, they aren't granted near monopoly status.
Hell, doesn't Google let you post just about anything, that doesn't break the law, on Blogger? (I honestly don't know, but I seem to remember that being the case)
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey guess what, Rackspace has the RIGHT to freely associate with whoever they want! Rackspace is a business and is under NO obligation to be the fall guy for this idiot church. They can get hosted somewhere else, perhaps the same servers that host stormfront.org? Or better yet, all the internet tough guys on slashdot today can probably scrape together enough to put the church's site up on some ubuntu LAMP stack and host the site themselves? You think its vital that the book burning message gets out? Fine, host it yourself. Its not difficult from a technical standpoint and its not difficult from a monetary standpoint. But don't think your insipid bigotry is moral justification to tell Rackspace how to run its business.
What Rackspace is doing is legal. What you're doing is justifying hatespeech and using that justification to force a business to behave in ways it does not want to.
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, I heard you've been using my megaphone to shout out messages of religious hate. I'll be having that back now.
See? He can carry on screaming about burning the Quran all he wants. Just not on Rackspace's services.
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
You would lose that bet. I would consider that no more hate speech than burning the US (or pick a country of your choice) flag. Or than most of the stereotyping of [ Republicans | Democrats ] that occurs on [ DailyKos | Free Republic ] . In other words, it's just an inarticulate and not very compelling expression of some benign opinion.
Although I dislike the use of the vague term "hate speech", I can see it applied to speech that calls for harming others. Such examples include speech by white supremacy groups calling for inflicting harms on "non-whites" and by Islamic fundamentalists calling for the destruction of the "west".
As far as I know (and, honestly, I've not been following it closely as all sides seem rather childish in this debate - why would I care what some small group of people want to burn in Florida or wherever it is), this "congregation" hasn't called for the destruction of followers of Islam or issued any other threats.
Burning wood or cloth fibers that you own isn't hateful. It may be stupid, it may be meaningless, it may be a waste of time, but for all I care you can burn an entire pallet full of On the Origin of Species - it won't change my belief in how life developed to its current form on Earth, I won't be insulted, I just don't care (except to the extent that presumably whoever is doing this as an expression of opinion is lacking some serious logical skills and I hope they recognize their disability and don't consider themselves qualified to vote, run for office, or serve on juries).
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
And as Americans, doesn't Rackspace have the right to host the sites they want? What kind of double standard is that?
I fully support the Church's right to burn all the Qur'ans they want, but I also support Rackspace's right to choose what content they host.
What is more stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
is for all these groups going out of their way to condemn this idiotic church but no condemn the threatened response of adherents of Islam. If one little piss ant church in America can cause so many Muslims unglued.
Frankly, while I find the idea of burning any book abhorrent I think that spitting in the face of these radicals of Islam is more important than not. Either bring your religion to 21st century and join the rest of us or shut the hell up.
So, yeah a small town church with a ego maniac at its helm is burning a book, it is no excuse by any RATIONAL people to react with violence.
Re:What is more stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Either bring your religion to 21st century and join the rest of us or shut the hell up.
One cannot force someone to change their religious views (or any view) through taunts and provocation. This exercise is immature, and the response will be likely be violently immature.
You're certainly not going to have these people suddenly roll over and say "oh hey, you know, this whole book burning thing has really opened my eyes!" Not even one.
Re:What is more stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Their response is needed to awaken the secular West to the threat of religion, all of which are toxic. We are used to tame, social-club religions. Islam is not that.
You do not train a child to be rational and logical by mocking them. You do it by listening to them and educating them slowly over time.
Why does everyone seem to think that inflammatory actions will somehow improve this situation? Keep in mind that what is currently a fairly fundamental Islamic world was effectively created in the last 100 years through financial oligarchy. The theocracy it has implemented is primarily a means of control, and only utilized out of convenience.
It will take a generation or two to moderate the middle east - however nothing we're doing now has set us on that path.
Re:What is more stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
Frankly, while I find the idea of burning any book abhorrent I think that spitting in the face of these radicals of Islam is more important than not. Either bring your religion to 21st century and join the rest of us or shut the hell up.
There are over 1 billion Muslims in the world, and several million living in the Western world. What percentage of them will resort to violence as a form of protest when these books are burned? Even a few thousand people is several orders of magnitude less than 1%. So it's hardly representative of the Muslim world. In a similar vein, Christians burnt down the Saint Michel theater in Paris [wikipedia.org], putting 13 people in hospital, just to protest against the film "The Last Temptation of Christ", so it's hardly like Islam has a monopoly on its followers wanting to restrict freedom of speech. (The Bible actually insists that blasphemers" should be killed by Christian congregations [skepticsan...dbible.com]: "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying ... he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.")
Re:What is more stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
There are over 1 billion Muslims in the world, and several million living in the Western world. What percentage of them will resort to violence as a form of protest when these books are burned? Even a few thousand people is several orders of magnitude less than 1%. So it's hardly representative of the Muslim world. In a similar vein, Christians burnt down the Saint Michel theater in Paris [wikipedia.org], putting 13 people in hospital, just to protest against the film "The Last Temptation of Christ", so it's hardly like Islam has a monopoly on its followers wanting to restrict freedom of speech. (The Bible actually insists that blasphemers" should be killed by Christian congregations [skepticsan...dbible.com]: "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying ... he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.")
The problem with that statement is that Mosaic law doesn't (read: shouldn't) apply to Christians. Most of the Old Testament laws were obsoleted by Christ. See the Sermon on the Mount [wikipedia.org] for a non-comprehensive list. While I certainly don't agree with the Paris theater burning fiasco, I also don't follow that the Bible encourages such action, if read properly.
Re:What is more stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
While I certainly don't agree with the Paris theater burning fiasco, I also don't follow that the Bible encourages such action, if read properly.
And there's the basic problem. Most Muslims will tell you that the Koran, if read properly, does not encourage such action. Most Muslims believe their faith teaches tolerance and peaceful coexistence with other faiths. It's a relative minority of Muslims who believe the Koran calls on them to blow up infidels, in exactly the same way it is a minority of Christians who believe the Bible calls on them to blow up abortion clinics. Peaceful muslims aren't interesting, though, any more than the 330,000 US churches who will not be burning Korans on Saturday are interesting.
Re:What is more stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Attempting to change their society will never, ever succeed, its only going to cause more issues than it solves. So the answer is not to change them, but to ignore them and certainly never, ever become like them.
Burning the Koran is a deliberate incitement, and is on a different level to the Islamic radicals burning American or western flags or Bibles, because we have a significantly lower attachment to the actual physical object (although in some ways, American patriotism and anti-flag burning movements are starting to become a religion in themselves) - burning an American flag or bible isn't going to get the streets filled with hundreds of thousands of Americans denouncing Iran or whomever, its barely going to register on our news cycle that evening.
Let me try and put this as an example in a purely western scenario - imagine what it would be like if, instead of books, we were talking about abortions, and imagine if instead of burning the book as a protest against what the book stands for, we had the anti-abortionist groups deliberately having abortions as a protest. How many abortions would it take until the other side gives in? How many abortions would it take until society takes action? Sure, the analogy looks wrong, and perhaps it is in some ways, but in both cases its an example (mine is probably a highly extreme example) of the protesters becoming what they protest against in order to facilitate that protest - in this case, the church are becoming the radical group that is deliberately inciting the other party.
As a higher denominator, this is what we should be preventing - because its not on our level, its far below it and I don't enjoy being part of a society that can stoop that low.
not really a good comparison (Score:4, Interesting)
Burning qurans to upset islamists is like burning bibles to upset the WBC.
Except for the fact that all the WBC ever does is show up with signs and stage a protest. They don't show up with grenade launchers, sharp knives, bombs, and guns. WBC is a significantly less harmful bag of nuts than radical islam. And what these radical muslims have discovered is that threats work to make people in the west roll over so they can get their way, or to strike the right amount of fear in them to make them willing to have full body scans to get on an airplane and give up their rights in the name of terrorism.
Re:What is more stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
"Burning qurans to upset islamists is like burning bibles to upset the WBC."
But it is a brilliant troll.
Peaceful destruction of inanimate objects is reasonable protest, and there is no reason that superstition shouldn't be freely debated and attacked in the marketplace of ideas. We have shied away from attacking superstition
because much of the world wasn't grown up enough to handle the debate. Now, when Muslims freak out and act as their book dictates, we'll have their demonstration of how the way Muslim superstition is practiced. I'd like to see Muslims FORCE the world to see Islam for what it is, they appear willing, so have at it.
Re:What is more stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
But when it comes it Islam, people become cowards. Take the President talking about the Ground Zero Mosque project: 'As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country,' ... 'That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.'
But when it comes to a Christian Church staging a protest: "If he's listening, I hope he understands that what he's proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans that this country has been built on the notion of freedom and religious tolerance."
Oh I see!!! In the first case, he was defending religious tolerance and, in the second, he was defending religious tolerance. Jeez... that's so hypocritical of him!
Freedom of speech doesn't mean that (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, this is the part that ticks me off the most about America: thinking that freedom of speech means you can swear at the neighbour's birthday party, or that some company has to carry your drivel.
In reality it's strictly about your relationship with Congress. The actual text of the first amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Basically Congress can make no law forbidding you to be a bigotted douchebag, but a company is not forced to carry your packets anyway. A private company can't violate your freedom of speech, because in respect to them you had none whatsoever in the first place.
In fact, if government forced a company to carry someone's drivel, they'd be essentially violating that company's freedom of press. It would be the government telling them what to print and/or distribute.
And possibly freedom of association too (in forcing them to be associated with some particular asshole or the views thereof), although that one isn't explicitly guaranteed in the USA anyway, only freedom of assembly is.
Re:Freedom of speech doesn't mean that (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the line is bit more blurry when it comes to things like ISPs. They're working with public property and they get government funding for crap like the national broadband initiative. So how can they turn around and resell services with restrictions that the government would not be allowed to have? Imagine if your electric company said "We're turning off the lights on any residence we feel is associated with hate speech." Private company, maybe, but I feel like that's different since they're also in a government protected market.
Both situations are different from, say, a restaurant refusing to allow you to get up and preach to all their customers. That's not the business of a restaurant.
Re:Freedom of speech doesn't mean that (Score:4, Informative)
There's a big difference between an ISP and a web-host. Rackspace is a web-host.
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell me, how is book burning representative for that quote popularly attributed to Voltaire now again?
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Western world: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Islamic world: "Die for insulting our moon god!"
Christian world: "Die for insulting our sky god!" [wikipedia.org]
"When Mighty Mouse falls victim of cocaine, the Devil's talcum powder, when directors with Mafia-sounding names make films about Jesus hanging out with whores just a stone's throw from that wholesome Universal Studios family tour, it is time for action. Unfortunately, conventional protests such as picketing and telephoned bomb threats do not seem to be working" Episcopal Bishop Paul Moore, New York [petergabriel.com]
“Neither the label ‘fiction’ nor the First Amendment gives Universal the right to libel, slander and ridicule the most central figure in world history.” - Jerry Falwell
"Following the boycott and protests against The Last Temptation of Christ, no Hollywood movie studio has seriously considered making a film that challenges the gospel story of Jesus." - The Long Term Effects on Censorship as a Result of the Protest Against the Last Temptation of Christ [associatedcontent.com]
Does this kind of thing still happen in the Christian world? Hmm... Playboy in Portugal shut down for its ‘blasphemous’ Jesus photoshoot [freethinker.co.uk]
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Might I suggest actually READING a bible (or heck a Quran) sometime before spouting off like that?
Both books endorse violence, punishment, and death to those that violate their laws and customs many times within them. Simply because you like Christianity (most likely because you were raised within the church) and hate Islam (because it is foreign to you and you have not educated yourself) doesn't mean you can ignore the content of these books and pretend that the Bible is all love and daisies while the Quran is hate and flesh eating locusts. They both also have a lot of extremely positive stances on social issues, particularly when you consider that they were both written in human rights dark ages.
The fact of the matter is that neither Christians or Muslims follow the literal writings of their holy books and instead selectively pick components that support their moral stances. In truth the two books are fairly equivelent which shouldn't come as a surprise since they are Monotheistic tomes written in ancient times when there was a profound lack of understanding of the world and a general disrespect of people who are different.
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Informative)
Second, the Holocaust was not a Christian thing
I suggest you visit the Holocaust Museum in Berlin and become educated about the history of German anti-semitism. Germany has historically been a Christian nation, and the anti-semitic history of its Christian people has been well documented. Please don't try to rewrite history by pretending that religion was not involved. The Nazi propaganda newspaper Der Stürmer [wikipedia.org] frequently invoked stories and images of supposed Jewish assaults and plots against Christians. There were numerous pro-Nazi Christian groups that wove Nazi propaganda into their theology (Rexists [wikipedia.org], etc.) [wikipedia.org]
"Christianity, however, did play a critical role, not perhaps in motivating the top decision makers, but in making their commands comprehensible and tolerable to the rank-and-file - the people who actively carried out the measures against the Jews as well as those who passively condoned their implementation.... The old antisemitism had created a climate in which the 'new' antisemitism was, at the very least, acceptable to millions of Germans." - Catholics, Protestants and Christian Antisemitism in Nazi Germany [jstor.org]
Some of the top Christian leaders actively supported the Holocaust:
"The duty of a Christian is to love himself first and to see that his needs are satisfied. Only then can he help his neighbor... Why should we not get rid of these parasites [Jews] who suck Rumanian Christian blood? It is logical and holy to react against them." - Patriarch Miron Cristea [time.com]
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:solution (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't agree. Instead of a compromise, isn't this more like encouraging people to take more provocative actions so they'd get their way?
Think, McFly, think! (Score:4, Informative)
If burning your own copy of a book is "religious violence," to the point of being terrorism, then we have no free speech rights whatsoever, do we?
Re:To all you "free speech" defenders (Score:4, Funny)
You clearly assume a level of education in the US that is vastly above the actual level of education in the US.
Re:To all you "free speech" defenders (Score:5, Insightful)
To all the people claiming that this violates this church's right to free speech, please inform me of how this is a government action. Because that is what is protected under the First Amendment. Hell, it's the first three words of the fucking amendment...
You misunderstand the point of the first amendment, and the founders' conception of rights. The first amendment does not GRANT rights; it merely acknowledges that the right to free speech exists, and constrains the federal government (and by the 14th amendment, state governments) from violating the right. Individuals, and corporations, can violate people's right to free speech without running afoul of the first amendment, because the rights are PRIOR to the constitution, and are inalienable.
You are thus conflating the "first amendment" as the source of free speech rights. It is not, at least under the American view of rights. Sadly, you've been modded informative, which means many Slashdot readers are ignorant of the basic Enlightenment philosophy underlying American law.
Re:To all you "free speech" defenders (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually the interesting way to push back against the burning of the Rainbow flag (representing homosexuals), would be for a group of atheist homosexuals to congregate in public, just across the street from the church, and burning a bunch of Bibles. If they really wanted to be provocative, they'd even burn an effigy of Jesus on the cross.
I mean - surely such free spirited church goers would have absolutely no problem with homosexual atheists doing such a thing, right? They'd probably defend their right to do so with blood if they had to.
Re:idiots abound (Score:4, Insightful)
WTF are you talking about (Score:5, Informative)
"government has no right to speak negatively about what this guy is doing"
There is no "official" government view, the President has a viewpoint, the congress has its viewpoints,etc,etc,etc
The President of the United States has the same right as any other citizen to express his views, the fact that his views may have persuaded rackspace to yank the nutjobs
account is irrelevant as long the President took no official action to cause this. Auditing someone in retaliation for refusal to do what the president says is illegal and isnt necessary.
The bully pulpit of the presidency has been used many times and is completely within the Presidents perogative
Re:Do they shut down jihad sites? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if Rackspace is this high and mighty about kicking pro terrorist and islamic jihad websites off their servers?
Somehow I doubt it.
Hey, I can make up random shit, too! Let's try it:
---
I wonder if WCMI92 stopped raping little girls.
Somehow I doubt it.
---
See, wasn't that fun?