US ISP Terminates Iranian News Website 770
grcumb writes "BBC News Online is reporting that the 'semi-official' Iranian Student News Agency has had its contract arbitrarily terminated by the US hosting service The Planet. Quoted in the Central Asian & Southern Caucasian Freedom of Expression Network, an ISNA spokesman said, "Eliminating the site of ISNA, a media outlet widely accessed around the world, is against informatics laws and runs counter to the rhetoric about the free flow of information and the principle of freedom to access information and news,". The BBC Reports that Iranian government officials were quick to accuse the US administration of pressuring The Planet to terminate the contract. So what should we make of this? Government conspiracy, corporate arrogance, or the proper sanctioning of the mouthpiece of an oppressive regime? " As the submittor says, details are virtually unknown about this - my research shows some calling the ISNA a 'bastion of freedom' to other saying it's run by flunkies of the old men of Iran; definitely not cut and dried one way or another.
Just business (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just business (Score:3, Insightful)
+5, Funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:+5, Funny (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the issues facing Iran today are very complex, and deep, and even well-informed Westerners would have a difficult time getting a pulse reading, even with their finger on the vein.
Events dating back to the 1953 US backed overthrow of a democratically elected government to prop up the Shah, later overthrown in the 1979 coup and hostage-crisis, US backing Saddam in the incredibly bloody Iran/Iraq war - which lasted 10 years, and decimated an entire generation of Iranians, and the US's later backing of Iran through illegal arms sales (Ollie North, Ghorbonifar, Poindexter. . . . . Bush) etc.
There's a point of view within Iranian culture, that the Mullahs have sucked the life out of Iran for too long. Some who share that view want a western-style democracy (roll the clock back to 1953). Some want a return of the Shah. Some just want to continue (or accellerate) the long road of progress and reforms that *have* taken place since 1980, under the Mullahs. America's recent sabre-rattling has certainly bolstered the Mullah's radical, hardline position, and weakened the moderates. Still, it's anybody's guess how this will all shake out, and it depends heavily on what's going to happen with Iraq, (whether there's a civil war, whether the Shiites end up with a significant chunk of what was Iraq), and whether the West does anything about Iran's provocative moves WRT purported nuclear weapons development.
It's probably not just a coincidence that this website was shut down. It's probably not a good thing for the West either. This may weaken the Mullahs from a resource and propaganda perspective, but it makes them look like the victim here. And that helps them. If it was intentional, it was not wise. Sounds like the people who like to think of themselves as the champions of Freedom in the world, need to be reminded of the reasons WHY Freedom is a good thing. History is littered with reasons. You don't have to look to hard to find examples where oppression backfired.
Re:+5, Funny (Score:5, Funny)
I'm being an asshole pointing this out, but you get pulses from the arteries, not veins.
LOL (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:+5, Funny (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, IMHO...it is compared to most of the rest of the world. Sure, there are increasing infringments on our individual freedoms, but, we're still free enough to bitch about it and fight for them....
Re:+5, Funny (Score:4, Insightful)
America: Let's give those Iranians some American freedoms.
Um, the country you're thinking of is the United States. The US government didn't have anything to do with shutting off this website.
First,, we'll bomb you, then give you it.
The country they bombed was IRAQ, not IRAN.
Iranians: Um, we don't want yuor freedoms, we're happy being Iranians.
How can "having freedom" mean "no longer being yourself"? Is "lack of freedom" their defining characteristic?
, Whatever happened to you respecting the rights of others? America: How dare you Iranians speak your own mind, we don't want the likes of you dictating to yourselves what you want.
To sum up: tyranny enforced by locals is better than freedom enforced by foreigners? It should be noted that the PEOPLE want to be free, versus the GOVERNMENT that doesn't want them to have freedom. This is quite different from the people themselves saying "we don't want freedom." This is a handful of mullas saying "we don't want the people to be free".
We're going to cut you of at the mouth by not allowing you to speak for yourselves.
The US government was never involved in this case. Even if they were, how is this "not allowing them to speak for themselves"? A website was taken down. That's it. Happens every day over at Tripod.
Iranians: Fuck off you dim-witted cunts, yuo thikn the rest of the world are as stupid as Bush followers?
I missed this part of the article where your hypothetical Iranian (or Iraqi) told the US to fuck off.
Also, it makes me giggle when you have the nerve to call someone ELSE dim-witted and stupid. You have no grasp whatsoever of the original article OR about the subject to which you are attempting to thread-jack.
Re:+5, Funny (Score:4, Insightful)
er, "freedom" doesn't need to be enforced.
Re:+5, Funny (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom does need to be enforced, if it is going to be any better than the one Hobbes described as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". I don't care for that kind of freedom.
We are slaves of laws so that we can be free (Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus) -- Cicero
Where there is no law, there is no freedom. -- John Locke
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. -- Th
Re:Freedom is slavery (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no difference. You are free, because you are allowed to do everything you want. All major political ideologies want to free people, but they differ in their beliefs on what most people want, and whether people know what they want (revealed preference vs. motivating preference).
As far as Iraq is concerned, in as much as the peo
Re:Freedom is slavery (Score:3, Insightful)
Hogwash, unless you get persnickety with the definition of cross-border. There's all sorts of control points on a nation, and you don't generally need to be a majority to have them. Historically, technology has been used. The pyschological advantage of control can't be overestimated either, slavery i
Re:Freedom is slavery (Score:3, Insightful)
I would disagree. You omitted the last part of the statement : "except not live in a prison state". In essence, you seem to be saying that if your cage is comfy enough, that is "free". Think of it a different way: mandelbrot set.
Mandelbrot is too abstract for me. Another answer I considered is that your prison state is an absolute monarchy, where only one has that freedom, since the total freedom of choice of one interferes with the freedom of choice of any other.
Since I do happen to live in a real wor
Re:+5, Funny (Score:3, Informative)
But since you do bring up Bush and the US let's remember that there are lots of examples of very un-free places in the world that are left well enough alone by the US because of any number of reasons - not the least of which is th
Re:+5, Funny (Score:3, Interesting)
There have been a lot of theories proposed as to why the exceptions of Japan and G
Re:+5, Funny (Score:3, Insightful)
Japan was also fairly far along towards democracy (for that time) before the military takeover.
So, there are pretty much no success stories at all when it comes to democracy by-the-sword.
Just business (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure it didn't. And when the NYSE revoked al-Jazeera's press credentials, that was also purely a business decision.
Americans put their hands over their hearts and preach to the world about freedom and human rights, and then turn around and torture prisoners, and attack freedom of the press, not to mention .... and then are bewildered that the world doesn't love them.
Re:Just business (Score:3, Insightful)
In short, you're giving America (both the country, the gov't, and individuals) credit for a great deal more organizational competence than we deserve.
Tim
Re:Just business (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, there's a legitimate argument over whether our recent foriegn policy actions have made us safer, but the goal was to further our interest, not to make other nations happy.
By accusing the US of hypocrisy you only expose your own naivety. Of course we act to protect ourselves (wise
Re:Just business (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, regardless of whether that's a bad thing or not, I think you'll find that that's a pretty good definition of hypocrisy.
Re:Just business (Score:5, Insightful)
I guarantee you the Americans espousing freedom and human rights were NOT the same people as those ignorant assholes in Abu Ghraib.
It's like saying Muslims are terrorists, just because 99% of the active terrorists in the world espouse [a bastardized version of] Islam.
You probably also think Slashdot represents a single hive-mind, and are confused when some people here love to watch the latest movies, while others are boycotting the MPAA.
Try to realize that the world is not black and white.
Re:Just business (Score:5, Informative)
Hmm, I better inform the 3rd October Organization (ASALA), the 17 November Revolutionary Organization, the Albanian National Arma, the Alex Boncayao Brigade, the Alliance of Eritrean National Force, the Algeti Wolves, the Alliance pour la resistance democratique (ARD) (Mayi-Mayi), the National Army for the Liberation of Uganda (NALU), AMAL, Japanese Red Army (JRA) Anti-Imperialist International Brigade (AIIB), the Anti-Imperialist Territorial Nuclei (NTA), the Arewa People's Congress, Fuerzas Armadas Liberacion Nacional Puertoriquena (FALN) (the "Armed Forces of Puerto Rican National Liberation", aka Popular Boricua Army, Ejercito Popular Boricua, Macheteros), the Armed Nuclei for Proletarian Autonomy, Armed Revolutionary Nuclei (ARN) (Ordine Nuovo), and Aum Shinrikyo (the folks responsible for the Tokyo Sarin gas attack, of which a few are still at large). And those are just the "A"'s and earlier. By the way, all of our local terroristic militias like McVeigh's gang, and the appallingly ignored May 2003 plot by white supremacists in Texas (led by Krar) who had enough weaponry and cyanide to take out an arms depot or small city, are not included in the list.
Re:Just business (Score:3, Insightful)
So was I. Not all of them got a kill in the past year, but many were quite active. And, as I mentioned, that was just the 'A's (and I included numbers as well).
> If you look at the number of people killed by terrorists in the last 5 years
I did. Why don't you?
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33777 . ht m
Before you start speaking all of this racist stuff about 99% of terrorists being Muslim, you should actual
Re:Well, maybe not "human rights, "anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
Rhetoric about "freedom" has become about as empty (and calculated) as rhetoric about "supporting the troops" lately. There certainly are Americans who seem to be willing to make an ends-and-means calculation about the sorts of torture that happened at Abu Graib.
My Southern Baptist relations dismissed those photos as one of the necessities of fighting this kind of war, to u
Re:Just business (Score:3, Informative)
Oh??? [wikipedia.org]
Islam and Terrorists (Score:3, Insightful)
I always thought that terrorists were a diverse bunch religiously. A few groups to think about:
1) Tamil Tigers (Hindu, inventors of the suicide bomb tactics)
2) IRA (still somewhat active outside N. Ireland, Catholic)
3) Various unionist militias in N. Ireland (unknown how active they are at present, Protestant)
4) Various groups in Columbia and Venezuela (Mostly Catholic)
5) Various groups in India (Hindu and Muslim)
6) Various Israeli groups (Jewish)
Hmmm.... Better become a Buddhist? All Hi
Re:+5, Funny (Score:3, Interesting)
One thing I would take issue with here though is that "American-Style" democracy is not necessarily synonymous with liberty (the two can exist independant of eachother). The right to self-determination is a very powerful right, and I don't think we can talk about liberty in Iran without acknowledging this. I.e. liberty cannot be imposed, for if it is, it is not liberty.
Iran is moving slowly in a
Re:Just business (Score:2)
Re:Just business (Score:3, Interesting)
And from what Netcraft shows [netcraft.com], they have been using the same hosting company (The Planet?) for quite some time now.
I doubt that this is about money as you so simply put it.
Re:Just business (Score:3, Insightful)
While I'm probably in the minority, and The Planet is unlikely to go out of business because of this, they will likely lose at least some potential business.
It's illegal (Score:4, Informative)
It's probably the case that the ISP realized they should have asked for this permit first, but to cover their asses they pulled the site asap.
I'm sure the newspaper can host their site in a country with less restrictive export controls - i'm sure they can find somewhere in europe.
Re:Just business (Score:4, Insightful)
Applied generally enough, the neocons can deny anyone they like access to commercial servers in the U.S. And abroad as well, if they care to make the usual threats through the usual channels. And they will care to.
In other news today, the Supreme Court says they've no problem with officers setting dogs on your car and person at a routine traffic stop to look for drugs, reason or no reason.
Every day, another door clangs shut on us in the soon to open New NeoCon World Order Prison.
Re:Just business (Score:2, Insightful)
error (Score:2, Insightful)
or the proper sanctioning of the mouthpiece of an oppressive regime?
You by by an oppresive regime.
Servers are private property. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Servers are private property. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have agreed a contract, abide by the T&Cs, and keep up payment; you have a RIGHT to be hosted, unless the contract is ended under its own T&Cs...
Except in the land of the "free" it appears
Re:Servers are private property. (Score:4, Interesting)
My caveats were there specifically to assuage pedants from making assinine "but maybe they had KP on their student news site" comments
Re:Servers are private property. (Score:4, Funny)
I suddenly have an image of the US South under British rule... :)
"Bloody hell, Cleetus, I think this boy is biting his thumb at me!"
On the side of The Planet (Score:2, Informative)
Re:On the side of The Planet (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:On the side of The Planet (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:On the side of The Planet (Score:3, Funny)
I don't know (Score:2, Funny)
Actually it's Persian... (Score:2, Insightful)
More Detail Needed (Score:2)
Lets face it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lets face it (Score:5, Insightful)
Then They Came for Me
by
First they came for the Muslims, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Muslim.
Then they came to detain immigrants indefinitely solely upon the certification of the Attorney General, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an immigrant.
Then they came to eavesdrop on suspects consulting with their attorneys, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a suspect.
Then they came to prosecute non-citizens before secret military commissions, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a non-citizen.
Then they came to enter homes and offices for unannounced "sneak and peek" searches, and I didn't speak up because I had nothing to hide.
Then they came to reinstate Cointelpro and resume the infiltration and surveillance of domestic religious and political groups, and I didn't speak up because I had stopped participating in any groups.
Then they came for anyone who objected to government policy because it aided the terrorists and gave ammunition to America's enemies, and I didn't speak up because...... I didn't speak up.
Then they came for me....... and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Stephen Rohde, a constitutional lawyer and President of the ACLU of Southern California, is indebted to the inspiration of Rev. Martin Niemoller (1937)
Re:Lets face it (Score:3, Interesting)
keep our kids safe and off the street.
Then they put away the prostitutes,
keep married men cloistered at home.
Then they shooed away the bums,
then they beat and bashed the queers,
turned away asylum-seekers,
fed us suspicions and fears.
We didn't raise our voice,
we didn't make a fuss.
It's funny there was no one left to notice
when they came for us.
Looks like witches are in season,
you better fly your flag and be aware
of anyone who might fit the description,
diversity is now our bi
How do you figure? (Score:3, Interesting)
And this one:
Re:Lets face it (Score:3, Insightful)
So, um, how is what you're doing different?
"against informatics law"? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:"against informatics law"? (Score:2)
Censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
Personal self-censorship is essential to civilization.
Business self-censorship, if done correctly, is good business, and is closer to personal than to governmental censorship.
Putting on the Tin-Foil Hat for a second ... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's simply the "administration" shutting down the flow of information in advance of an attack. They don't want any pesky students posting photos for all to see of abuses to Iranians or leaking sensitive tactical information, or perhaps they have simply declared this site as a host for terrorists. Time to watch for other Iranian sites going dark to see if this is the precursor to the next round in "The War on Terror".
I wonder which war will take longer to admit defeat in, Terror or Drugs.
p.s. please read the subject of this post :-)
Watch out, trick question (Score:5, Insightful)
HA! I caught you!
You thought you could fool us all, didn't you?
Defeat will never be admitted in either one!
We all know the conservative pundits in favor of the War on Drugs will NEVER give up, as the "Must protect the children by cutting everything out of life we don't want them to see" crowd would have their political heads on poles if they did.
And the war on terror? Why on EARTH would the Conservatives give up an enemy like Terrorists after losing Communism as a "Give me power so I can protect you" bogeyman. No, as ling as there is political gain to be made from it, the War on Terror will continue, and everyone who opposes it will be portrayed as a weak willed coward incapable of taking a stand and begging for the world to take advantage of them.
You couldn't be more fucking wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Neocons are not the ultra conservative religious right.
Neocons are not killers of abortion doctors.
Neocons are not gay bashers.
Now, Bush IS a neoconservative. But there seems to be a disconnect here. Because if you think that Bush is anywhere CLOSE to this ultra fanatical religious right you think about, you have no fucking ide
Re:You couldn't be more fucking wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this is a concept lost on many (like Sens. Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer in the last week or so): no doubt it's creati
Re:Putting on the Tin-Foil Hat for a second ... (Score:5, Insightful)
We all know the kind of provocation the US has historically needed, and that sending lots of soldiers is not the only way the US has abused its power and screwed some other country over (see Chile again).
Re:Putting on the Tin-Foil Hat for a second ... (Score:3, Insightful)
September 2001: WTC attacks. Less than 3% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was connected.
September 2003: After months of grumbling, Saddam Hussein is formally fingered as having connections with Al Qaeda. Still almost no one believes it.
March 2004: Six months of ubiquitous and furious propaganda later, just over half of Americans believe Hussein has connections to Al Qaeda and WMD, and want to invade Iraq. Flash forward to today. After years o
Re:Putting on the Tin-Foil Hat for a second ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Bush isn't using the war to keep people's minds off the economy so much as he's using it to affect the economy. The United States is an economic powerhouse -- we've got loads of natural resources, excellent infrastructure, and a large force of skilled labor. By all means, we've got the ability to produce enough for every American to live a life of luxury, far more than most of us live today.
War, however, is a means to
Re:Putting on the Tin-Foil Hat for a second ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a First Amendment Issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, in this country, you have a right to say whatever you want. However nobody is obligated to broadcast your message, especially if they believe that your message could be harmful to their own wellbeing.
Now The Planet may have grounds to sue for breach of contract, but that hardly makes this an issue of constitutional law.
Equal Time (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/equalti
Re:Not a First Amendment Issue (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, private enterprise is just that... private. Unless that company could be proven to have discriminated based on race, sex, age, or disability, they can allow/disallow anything they want. To force
Re:Not a First Amendment Issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the airwaves regulated by the FCC are PUBLIC property. If you're a citizen, it belongs to YOU.
That's not to say that I disagree with Planet's right to cut off the website, they have that right.
But the notion that only monied interests should be able to (by virtue of some imagined ideal like a mythical "Free Market") have the privilege of free speech - ignores the fact that Public Research Funds created the Internet, and that the Public
Or perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:3, Insightful)
But since Yellow Journalism is back in a big way, scary headlines sell.
USEFUL Link (Score:5, Informative)
ISNA has well-known links to terror (Score:5, Insightful)
- ISNA accepted funding from Palestinian militant groups. Hamas and Islamic Jihad helped sponsor the site, and consequently the site was sympathetic to their viewpoints - at times, even running banner ads.
- ISNA advertised for fake charities. Several now-indicted or convicted fronts to radical groups were also major contributors to the site.
- ISNA advocated the killing of innocent Americans. As any Muslim knows, our faith and the Koran does NOT espouse violence against innocents. The ISNA site, on the other hand, frequently published and distributed hateful anti-American literature encouraging the forceful conversion or even murder of innocent Westerners.
As somebody whose friends have been victims of misguided hate crimes against Arab-Americans, I am happy to see this extremist site gone. We will only live in peace when both Muslim and Christian zealots put down their weapons.Re:ISNA has well-known links to terror (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't dispute what you say, but if the site was up I could see for myself.
Re:ISNA has well-known links to terror (Score:4, Informative)
Interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ISNA has well-known links to terror (Score:4, Informative)
You say you are Arab American. This web site is in Persian, as you can see from Archive.org [archive.org] . So how come you know all this about them?
You seem to be confusing ISNA (Iranian Students News Agency, the subject of this Slashdot article) with ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) [isna.net]?
The latter ISNA is a well reputed Muslim organization in America and not related to promoting terrorism nor fake charities.
An Arab American would most likely spelled it as Quran and not Koran too.
You being an Anonymous Coward tells me that are trolling, and not just confused.
Re:ISNA has well-known links to terror (Score:4, Interesting)
That being said, the ISP can accept or reject customers for any reasons that it wants, so long as it's not violating its contracts and isn't discriminating illegally (sex, race, religion, etc.). (This is all assuming US law -- I have no idea what Iranian law requires of ISP's, etc.) And, on the flip side, ISNA should be able to freely move their site to another ISP, transfer DNS, have adequate notice from the ISP before termination to manage a transfer, etc. That should all have been covered by their contract.
What I can't see is why this is a big deal. If one ISP doesn't want to host ISNA, they can terminate them but should be required by their contract to give them adequate notice, and access to the servers, to move to another ISP. If the ISP didn't give them that, ISNA should sue them. If ISNA had adequate notice and didn't move their site, they're being lame.
Re:ISNA has well-known links to terror (Score:5, Insightful)
Other religions are evil? Sounds like specious reasoning if you ask me. The 3 big religious books (Torah, Bible, and Koran) all contain hate and intolerence. It is a fact. You can try to justify it with the age old claim of "out of context", but it is right explicit in each book and actually requires intense re-explanation and reinterpretation in order to make it disappear.
With regards to the Torah/Old Testament, in the New Testament we have stories detailing the intolerance and hate espoused by the Jewish religion. Take for example the good samaritan, where samaritans were an ethnic minority despised by the mainstream Jews. The moral of the story was that prejudice, xenophobia, racism, etc is bad, your ally, your friend, your neighbor is the person that is good towards you.
Which brings me to another point. The 3 books also contain love, happiness, and other good stuff. They are each a mixed bag, just like people themselves.
So explain away that the sky is blue, but I still have eyes of my own.
ThePlanet is supposedly trying to clean up its act (Score:2, Interesting)
It's perfectly cut and dried (Score:3, Interesting)
If they deicded that this particular site was unacceptable, either because it included content not allowed by their rules, or simply because the amount of money they made was less than money it cost them in terms of lost bussiness, support, complaints, etc, then it is understandable that they'd decide to terminate it.
From the speed at which their main site is loading (as in not at all) I'm going to guess this isn't a large hosting operation (the big ones like Pair will laigh of a
Unless I see some proof of the US ogvernmetn being involved, I'm thinking it was a bussiness decision, and regardless of if it's a good or bad one, that's their right. ISNA is perfectly free to find another host, and this time hopefully they'll check more carefully to make sure they won't have the plug pulled on them. There are plenty of hsots out there, BLue Gravity being one I'm aware of, that for enough cash will let you host high bandwidth and contraversial things (including porn in the case of Blue Gravity).
Re:It's perfectly cut and dried (Score:3, Informative)
I think you may be confusing them for some small shared hosting provider.
Ebay makes decisions like this all the time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ebay makes decisions like this all the time. (Score:3, Insightful)
The DMCA(?) makes exceptions for ISPs in content violation cases just because they are ISPs: they are not supposed to (or be able to) monitor what goes over their networks.
If ISPs start censoring speech like this, then how long before they're held liable for music files being transferred over their networks?
Fox! (Score:5, Funny)
Shut down Fox!
"definitely not cut and dried one way or another" (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe... (Score:5, Interesting)
It wouldn't suprise me at all if The Planet was just done dealing with the crap. I know we terminated more than one customers account due to that.
cut and HUNG OUT TO BE dried.. (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the more apt punch lines I can recall reading in
But all the more reason to cry foul: precicely because it is not well and widley know whether its a propaganda site or the tattered soap box of some oppressed students, its should be left up to the intelligence of the readers on the web to decide what they believe and what they reject.
I have enormous difficulty accepting that the disruption is due, in effect, to the failure of someone to pay their hosting bills. I spend more on coffee than it takes to host a medium traffic webpage. And both the Iyatollahs and the Shah loyalists and just about everybody but the women in Iran have all the cash that could be needed.
Censorship works best when it is voluntary (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is why it is sad if they got the plug pulled because of their content. Our liberty is defined by whether we err on the side of caution and shut down anything that makes us the least uneasy, or whether we accept the risk of things we don't understand/agree with. See Lee Greenwood fans vs. Flag-burning.
Maybe this is just a business decision, completely independent of politics. I doubt it. The US administration is growing increasingly hostile to Iran. Imagine a US ISP hosting a news service sympathetic to Iraq during the build-up to the war. Do you think that they would keep doing so? Do you think that, in the current climate of "sieze you and your assets with a secret warrant and haul you to Cuba where you never get a trial or even a lawyer", the ISP would even wait for the government to say anything?
Most likely, this web site seemed risky to business, and they figured it would just be best if they ended their business relationship. Understandable, but when we look at the history of human abuse and how it is institutionalized in society, we always ask, how could people just stand by and let that happen? Well, you're watching it happen. This may be a small thing, and not particularly oppressive, but it's a good example of how we've allowed ourselves to be intimidated by the threat of government attention, and how it affects many of the decisions we make every day.
How (not) to pick an ISP (Score:3, Funny)
Shared hosting is like living in an apartment building. If you want to start a swinger's club, you might want to consider a more out-of-the-way location and either buy it or find an open-minded landlord. Because the first time someone shows up at your building with sex-toy-headgear on, Mr. Flanders in 3B is probably going to start making phone calls.
Re:How (not) to pick an ISP (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe.... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is strangely possible that some events occur without any government intervention. While it's quite possible, I have to say I really hate the spin added to this story, especially when it's even admitted that there aren't any real details as of yet.
In other news... Man misses light on way to work because of pedestrian in pedestrian crossing... could this be a government conspiracy? News at 11
Please tell me where in the constitution you have (Score:3, Interesting)
I have been discussing this in my
Please read this with the emphasis:
Congress 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.
Where does it say, 'You have the right to say anything you want, the government has the right to remove religious symbols from the public, etc etc"?
Also, when people say, "separation of church and state" they use it as if it were in the 1st ammendment. It IS NOT!
Before many slashdotters reply to this... take into account that the way the 1st ammendment is worded, technically copyright law was a law restricting speech. Was it not?
So again, I ask you, how is this removal of this material a violation of the free flow of information?
Re:Please tell me where in the constitution you ha (Score:3, Interesting)
To explain, consider that Man, in his/her natural state, has no Man-made laws governing him/her.
Misconceptions (Score:3, Interesting)
Essentially the only thing holding it back is the infamous mullahs, who have oversight over everything that takes place in the government and can go so far as to declare a candidate for any given office "too liberal," thus taking him out of the running.
So, it seems extremely unlikely that this website was a "mouthpiece of an oppressive regime" unless the mullahs had something to do with it, which from what I can tell is a stretch at best. With that in mind, the only assumption that one can make is that the closing of this website has something to do with the fact that the Bushies have Iran in their sights for the next misguided invasion. And what do the Bushies do when they want to go to war? Spread lies and false information, and try to cover up the viewpoint of the other side. With that in mind, I would not be surprised if they were behind this. However, considering the lack of details, I'll just have to don my TinFoilHat for now.
Freedom Of Expression Only OK For Some? (Score:3, Insightful)
So what you're saying is that freedom of expression is fine - as long as the people are expressing a viewpoint that you concur with?
No matter who the authors are it's still taking someone's freedom of expression away - you shouldn't be able to pick and choose who can express themselves freely, and the US Government definitely shouldn't be deciding that!!!
What it means (Score:3, Insightful)
The ends justify the means these days. We've lost any semblance of ideals. Privacy, the Constitution, freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable search...all shamelessly trampled when they become inconvenient in the war on terror.
Although at least this time we learned to keep our internment camps somewhere less visible.
Proper Sanctioning? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that possible? Who is to say what is proper? When does the one sanctioning become the oppressor?
Actual Censorship in Iran (Score:5, Interesting)
20 Iranian Bloggers and Journalists Arrested [latimes.com]
Iranian President calls for Investigation of Blogger Torture [signonsandiego.com]
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's president called Sunday for an investigation into journalists' allegations they were tortured into confessing to charges such as insulting sacred beliefs and endangering national security after publishing articles critical of conservatives in the government.
Ominous implications (Score:5, Interesting)
As I wrote 23 years ago [geocities.com]:
The grace period may be about over.
ISPs are not Common Carriers (Score:3, Informative)
lets not forget ... (Score:3, Insightful)
If The Planet felt, for *whatever* reason, they were on the losing side of this deal, and they are prepared to deal with the possible repricussions of the doing so, they can break the deal.
In summary, to all the freedom-freaks: This has nothing to do with freedoms of any kind, except of course, the freedom for The Planet to act how they did. No government squashing of free speech, no freedom to be hosted wherever you please. Nope, nothing like that.Get your site out of the US (Score:4, Interesting)
If for some reason that's not possible, the best thing one could do if they run a site like this is get it out of the "Land of the Free" United States and host it in a country that actually respects political* free expression. For example, the Iraqi resistance [albasrah.net] website is hosted in the Netherlands. I've come across a lot of similar sites run by organizations like HAMAS or the Hizballah, and IIRC they were hosted in the Netherlands, too. The Chechens [kavkazcenter.com] used to have their website hosted in Lithuania, until they posted a communiqué from Shamil Basaev after the Beslan incident, whereupon they got temporarily shut down (probably under pressure from Russia); now the site appears to be in Sweden.
So your best bet if you're running some site like this is to look at Europe, particularly Scandinavia, and ignore any claptrap you hear about "Constitutional" protections in the US (much like the government itself does).
--
* In the US, you can get away with some of the most blatant racism and the bizarrest pornography, all under the ægis of freedom of expression, but anything that comes a bit too close to pissing off the State will quickly find you shut down.
Re:Here's another chance to complain about Dubya (Score:2)
Guess he just hates the Iranians' freedoms. The same as he hates the freedom of women to control their own bodies, the freedom of people in love to marry whatever their sexuality, the freedom from pain and wasting that pot can give cancer victims, the freedom of future generations from debts he can lead us in accumulating.... Yup, gotta admire his consistency and leadership in decisivel