Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Censorship The Internet Your Rights Online

US ISP Terminates Iranian News Website 770

Posted by Hemos from the what's-the-real-story dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US ISP Terminates Iranian News Website More

US ISP Terminates Iranian News Website

Comments Filter:

  • Just business (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HairyCanary ( 688865 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @10:53AM (#11468010)
    Or perhaps it's just business. Some ISP's don't want the hassle that comes with hosting a controversial web site. It costs money and time to do so, and may not be profitable. I can't argue with The Planet if they just decided they weren't making enough money on the deal for it to be worth keeping.

    • Re:Just business (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Directrix1 ( 157787 )
      Also, why wouldn't they just get hosted in Iran if its such a big deal.

      • +5, Funny (Score:5, Insightful)

        by pb ( 1020 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @11:11AM (#11468247)
        Iran, also not necessarily a 'bastion of freedom'... :)

        • Re:+5, Funny (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jafac ( 1449 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @01:37PM (#11470261) Homepage
          Iran, also not necessarily a 'bastion of freedom'... :)

          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.
    • That's exactly what I was thinking, it was just a business decision. Maybe they just didn't pay their bills.

    • Re:Just business (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MoThugz ( 560556 )
      If that was the case all along... The Planet shouldn't have hosted them at all in the first place.

      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)

      by eln ( 21727 )
      While this is true, I personally won't ever be moving my hosting to The Planet after this news. While my site may not be as controversial as the one that was pulled, it does contain political speech, and I'd hate to think that my hosting company could and would arbitrarily pull my site for supporting political views that they disagree with.

      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)

      by grahamsz ( 150076 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @12:11PM (#11469027) Homepage Journal
      The US Government requires a specific license to provide any goods or services to anyone in iran.

      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)

      by Catbeller ( 118204 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @12:46PM (#11469536) Homepage
      So, if the U.S. government, or more properly, the neocons now running the White House, State, and the Pentagon, don't like something on a website, say... criticism of them... it's in an ISP's best business interests to simply acquiese and deny the WH's enemy access to the web through their machines.

      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.

  • error (Score:2, Insightful)

    by grub ( 11606 )

    or the proper sanctioning of the mouthpiece of an oppressive regime?

    You by by an oppresive regime.

  • Servers are private property. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @10:55AM (#11468032)
    When will people realize they don't have a "right" to be hosted? Private businesses can do whatever they like since they pay the bills. I'm sure there are a thousand other host that will take the business and a good portion of them are in the USA.
  • For what it's worth, I've been using The Planet based hosting for a good while now with many servers there. Every aspect of their service and support is the most top of notches, and I truly don't believe they'd take such action lightly.

  • I don't know (Score:2, Funny)

    by maroberts ( 15852 )
    the site is all arabic to me
  • But I imagine it won't be any more forthcoming from the main source (The Planet) than the details of the SCO vs. IBM trial from SCOs side.

  • Lets face it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @10:56AM (#11468052)
    The US is not the shining pinnacle of freedom it once was. The American people have obviously been free for too long and they dont appreciate it anymore.

    • Re:Lets face it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @11:10AM (#11468223)

      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)

        by log0n ( 18224 )
        First they put away the dealers,
        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
  • Where exactly is this "informatics law" inscribed in US legislation?

  • Censorship (Score:3, Insightful)

    by QMO ( 836285 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @10:57AM (#11468068) Homepage Journal
    Government censorship is (nearly) always very bad.

    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)

    by bfree ( 113420 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @10:57AM (#11468070)

    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)

      by doublem ( 118724 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @11:21AM (#11468366) Homepage Journal
      I wonder which war will take longer to admit defeat in, Terror or Drugs.

      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.

  • Not a First Amendment Issue (Score:5, Insightful)

    by goldspider ( 445116 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @10:57AM (#11468072) Homepage
    Anyone who thinks it is needs to educate themselves on the free market.

    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)

      by Ironsides ( 739422 )
      The USA has an Equal Time rule when it comes to TV broadcasters. It came into being because the Gov recognized that the power of TV could be abused to promote only one side and is used to help counter it. Essentially, in some cases they "can" be required to broadcast it.

      http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/equaltim eru/equaltimeru.htm [museum.tv]

  • Or perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rhsanborn ( 773855 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @10:58AM (#11468073)
    ...its foolish to speculate without any information or evidence to support any claims whatsoever.

    • Re:Or perhaps... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by GearheadX ( 414240 )
      I concurr. People saw that it was shut down and seem to be automatically assuming things one way or the other. Unless someone has their Great Karnak hat and crystal ball out and is reading the future, I seriously doubt anyone (save for the parties directly involved) has any clue what's going on.

      But since Yellow Journalism is back in a big way, scary headlines sell.

  • USEFUL Link (Score:5, Informative)

    by saintp ( 595331 ) <stpierre@nospAM.nebrwesleyan.edu> on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @10:59AM (#11468086) Homepage
    Link to actual story from the BBC [bbc.co.uk]

  • ISNA has well-known links to terror (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @11:00AM (#11468100)
    As an Arab-American it filled me with shame the first time I saw the ISNA site. It portrayed Islam in a negative light by supporting extremist ideals and organizations. For example:
    • 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)

      by sanctimonius hypocrt ( 235536 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @11:08AM (#11468210) Homepage Journal

      I don't dispute what you say, but if the site was up I could see for myself.

    • Interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pb ( 1020 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @11:14AM (#11468287)
      Either of your first two claims (if true) would probably be reason enough to shut it down, due to the administration's current stance on terrorist financing [whitehouse.gov]. Now, I personally think their definition of 'terrorism' is overly broad, but this specifically is the sort of thing they did have in mind.

    • Re:ISNA has well-known links to terror (Score:4, Informative)

      by kbahey ( 102895 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @11:27AM (#11468425) Homepage

      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)

      by laird ( 2705 ) <lairdp@gmail.TWAINcom minus author> on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @12:15PM (#11469080) Journal
      Whether you support or oppose the ISNA site, ISP's aren't responsible for the content of the sites that they host, and should (IMO) make their decisions based on business issues. For example, hosting spammers is bad because those people abuse the internet, violating the ISP's Acceptable Use Policy (and aside from the moral issues, attracting counter-attacks that are a PITA for an ISP to deal with). The idea that an ISP would terminate a site's hosting due to the site's content (assuming it's not illegal to host the site) is pretty creepy.

      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.
  • They're posting a bunch of messages in news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting about how they've terminated a bunch of spammers, and would the blocklist operators pretty please de-list them? Maybe this is part of that effort, either deliberately or accidentally.

  • It's perfectly cut and dried (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @11:03AM (#11468150)
    Unless the US government influenced them to shutdown the site, I see no problem. ISPs (actually I think IPP is the term here, not sure) have a right to choose who they do and do not host. Some have blanket refusals of certian kidns of websites (porn sites are commonly disallowed), others make the decision on more of a case-by-case basis.

    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 /.ing of their main site). It's possible that it is as simple as the site using more resources than this particular host can or is willing to provide.

    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).
    • The planet is one of the largest hosting providers in the country. In fact if you check netcraft's Sites on the Move [netcraft.com] you'll see they rank #5 in terms of the number of websites added in the last 24 hours. They've added over 400 in the last day. Ahead of Yahoo, Register.com, Verio and others.

      I think you may be confusing them for some small shared hosting provider.

  • Ebay makes decisions like this all the time. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kenrod ( 188428 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @11:05AM (#11468177)
    The Planet has the same right to refuse service to repressive regimes as Ebay does to refuse auctions of Nazi items. Free speech includes the right to control what is said on property you own.

    • I don't think so. It is not like The Planet is giving them free space.

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @11:06AM (#11468188)
    ... the proper sanctioning of the mouthpiece of an oppressive regime?

    Shut down Fox!

  • "definitely not cut and dried one way or another" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tbase ( 666607 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @11:06AM (#11468191)
    So let's each pick a side and start making wild assumptions and speculation.

  • Or maybe... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GweeDo ( 127172 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @11:07AM (#11468194) Homepage
    I used to work for a web hosting company. Any site that in any way pissed people off or even irritated someone a little bit often lead to someone trying to DDoS the stupid site. I can only image how many people are trying to break into/bring down this site because something they said made them mad. I am not saying that what they say is right or wrong, but it is sure to rub someone the wrong way.

    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)

    by museumpeace ( 735109 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @11:07AM (#11468204) Journal
    "...definitely not cut and dried one way or another"
    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)

    by FearUncertaintyDoubt ( 578295 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @11:14AM (#11468276)
    definitely not cut and dried one way or another.

    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)

    by tbase ( 666607 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @11:14AM (#11468281)
    Would you open an AOL account so you could start a pr0n website using the included web space? Would you then cry censorship when they take you page down? Maybe these guys did their homework, but it seems to me you'd want to either self-host or be very selective if you're going to run a contriversial site. Oh but wait, then you wouldn't get that free publicity when they shut you down, or the free hosting when some "hero" steps in to "right the wrong".

    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.

  • Maybe.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by I8TheWorm ( 645702 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @11:16AM (#11468304) Journal
    ..just maybe, it's a business decision, rather than

    So what should we make of this? Government conspiracy, corporate arrogance, or the proper sanctioning of the mouthpiece of an oppressive regime?


    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)

    by adzoox ( 615327 ) * on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @11:17AM (#11468315) Journal
    the right to free speech...

    I have been discussing this in my /. journal and on my website:

    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?

    • You seem to be working off of the assumption that a government must expressly dictate what rights are, when the opposite is true. A "right" is essentially anything that the government does not make a law against. This statement only goes for personal rights, though; the State, being an artificial and bureaucratic institution, must explicitly set out what rights it has (in other words, which laws it can enforce.)

      To explain, consider that Man, in his/her natural state, has no Man-made laws governing him/her.

  • Misconceptions (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TooMuchEspressoGuy ( 763203 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @11:20AM (#11468347)
    In actuality, Iran isn't quite as oppressive as the Bushies would have us believe. What they don't tell you is that the Iranian government consists of a semi- (or "illiberal") democracy, with a reformer as its current head, and that Iran probably has the most potential of any Mideast country to evolve genuine democratic institutions over time (aside from Turkey, obviously, which has already pretty much democratized.) The Iranian people have an extensive (for a Mideast country) freedom of expression, voting rights, and the opportunity to lay out more rights given time to work things out on their own.

    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)

    by pcardno ( 450934 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @11:25AM (#11468403) Homepage
    The article poster, and a fair few people commenting, are suggesting that since the site may have been run by nasty old men from Iraq's flunkies, rather than bona fide students, that it's fine to take it down...

    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)

    by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @11:25AM (#11468404) Homepage
    The BBC Reports that Iranian government officials were quick to accuse the US administration of pressuring The Planet to terminate the contract.

    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)

    by surefooted1 ( 838360 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @11:27AM (#11468430)
    or the proper sanctioning of the mouthpiece of an oppressive regime?

    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)

    by TheSync ( 5291 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @11:37AM (#11468557) Journal
    Iranian Blogger Arrested [payvand.com]

    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)

    by Baldrson ( 78598 ) * on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @11:39AM (#11468590) Homepage Journal
    An ISP censors at its own peril. Common carrier status provides freedom from liability for content carried. Common carrier status is abrogated by censoring content carried. The Planet is risking undermining its own legal status while at the same time undermining, via court precedent, the common carrier status of all ISPs due to the immature nature of the law governing this new regime of media.

    As I wrote 23 years ago [geocities.com]:

    The question at hand is this: How do we mold the early videotex environment so that noise is suppressed without limiting the free flow of information between customers?

    The first obstacle is, of course, legal. As the knights of U.S. feudalism, corporate lawyers have a penchant for finding ways of stomping out innovation and diversity in any way possible. In the case of videotex, the attempt is to keep feudal control of information by making videotex system ownership imply liability for information transmitted over it. For example, if a libelous communication takes place, corporate lawyers for the plaintiff will bring suit against the carrier rather than the individual responsible for the communication. The rationalizations for this clearly unreasonable and contrived position are quite numerous. Without a common carrier status, the carrier will be treading on virgin ground legally and thus be unprotected by precedent. Indeed, the stakes are high enough that the competitor could easily afford to fabricate an event ideal for the purposes of such a suit. This means the first legal precedent could be in favor of holding the carrier responsible for the communications transmitted over its network, thus forcing (or giving an excuse for) the carrier to inspect, edit and censor all communications except, perhaps, simple person-to-person or "electronic mail". This, in turn, would put editorial control right back in the hands of the feudalists. Potential carriers' own lawyers are already hard at work worrying everyone about such a suit. They would like to win the battle against diversity before it begins. This is unlikely because videotex is still driven by technology and therefore by pioneers.

    The grace period may be about over.

    • In the US and most (all?) other areas, ISPs are not Common Carriers although they retain certain aspects Common Carriers. ISPs are quite free to "protect" their networks or "customize" their services as they see fit. ISPs have to walk a fine line with this, if an ISP can be shown to have too much control over the CONTENT of what is passed over their network, they may cause themselves to be liable for illegal acts that occur on their network. Terminating a user's service is not normally considered to be c

  • lets not forget ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by runnin247 ( 838508 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @11:47AM (#11468688)
    ... that sometimes it's beneficial to break contracts when your position isn't changing as originally thought. No one is expected to stay in a losing position.

    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)

    by J'raxis ( 248192 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @12:02PM (#11468910) Homepage
    Firstly, if this is a "semi-official" (government-run or -connected?) news site, why isn't it hosted in Iran proper?

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close