Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Censorship The Internet Your Rights Online

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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rackspace Shuts Down Quran-Burning Church's Sites

Comments Filter:
  • No thanks (Score:1, Informative)

    by Pharmboy ( 216950 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @08:55AM (#33519678) Journal

    You know, we didn't need Rackspace to get involved in this mess, we already had enough people trying to stomp on the preacher's 1st amendment rights. Yes, it may violate their TOS, but still, it was unnecessary and only makes the situation worse. They should have just let it slide and if they had to, release a statement distancing themselves from the church, blah blah blah...

    I think that burning the Koran is stupid, senseless and harmful, but the whole idea behind the 1st Amendment is to protect and allow EXACTLY this kind of speech. Either you truly believe in free speech and support the preacher's right to burn the book (even if you find the idea deplorable) or you don't really believe in free speech.

    Ironically, I put the 1st amendment as my status on facebook, as I got tired of half my Christian friends talking about how they shouldn't put a mosque near the old twin tower site. I thought it was obvious in that I was saying they have the right to built it anywhere that code allows, even if I find it distasteful. They all universally thought I was supporting THEIR right to say that Muslims have no right to build it there. I guess free speech is great, as long as others don't say something you don't like.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 09, 2010 @08:56AM (#33519688)
    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...
  • Re:well done (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 09, 2010 @09:07AM (#33519838)

    It's a webhoster, not an ISP.

  • Re:well done (Score:5, Informative)

    by codewarren ( 927270 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @09:08AM (#33519856)

    Rackspace != ISP.

    Rackspace is a website hosting company.

  • by Vahokif ( 1292866 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @09:16AM (#33519974)
    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.
  • by FatSean ( 18753 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @09:17AM (#33519986) Homepage Journal

    Which is what the USA is all about. You can say what you like as long as you can afford to pay for creation and distribution and someone will take your money. Otherwise you are effectively silenced.

  • Re:well done (Score:3, Informative)

    by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @09:18AM (#33520006)

    Web hosting providers are not common carriers; they police user content all the time. Also as evidenced by this action, Rackspace is also not a common carrier.

    ISPs are also not common carriers: your service can get disconnected if you are detected sending spam.

    Of course they would like to have all protections as possible, because just because they will respond to complaints does not mean they actually monitor or have the ability to monitor everything; there is a limit to what is feasible.

  • Think, McFly, think! (Score:4, Informative)

    by amliebsch ( 724858 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @09:19AM (#33520026) Journal

    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?

  • by whisper_jeff ( 680366 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @09:21AM (#33520078)
    Yes. I agree. Oppressive it is. I've always viewed Canada as an oppressive country what with it's hate speech laws and all.

    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'.
  • Gospel purposes... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Notquitecajun ( 1073646 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @09:22AM (#33520092)
    For those of us who are a bit more conservative in our Christianity (many here may call me a fundie - the pastor burning the books would probably call me a lefty, so there you go...), this book burning issue is sad not because of the intolerance and idiocy that it shows, but because it serves no Gospel purpose. It will push Muslims away from Christianity (as well as Western values in general - many non-western Muslims link nationality and religion together). It does nothing to fulfill the Great Commission - the idea that Christ commanded us to go into the world and preach the Gospel (man is a sinner in need of a Saviour, provided by Christ's death on the Cross). It just does the opposite.
  • Re:Stupid (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 09, 2010 @09:29AM (#33520246)

    Welcome to the difference between the western world, and the Islamic world.

    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!"

    That is not entirely accurate. Some Western countries ( not US ) have laws prohibiting some forms of hate speech. For example, Canada has laws against hate speeches, and as far as I know, both government and the public will not hesitate to enforce those laws should they be breached. Only in US do you have unrestricted free speech however outrageous they may be.

    In Canada, speech is only free when it's not hate speech.

    Obligatory wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

  • by RKThoadan ( 89437 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @09:29AM (#33520256)

    There's a big difference between an ISP and a web-host. Rackspace is a web-host.

  • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @09:32AM (#33520322) Journal

    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:Satire (Score:5, Informative)

    by Silverhammer ( 13644 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @09:32AM (#33520328)

    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.

    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.

  • by Spazmania ( 174582 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @09:32AM (#33520330) Homepage

    "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]

  • Re:Good (Score:3, Informative)

    by Attila Dimedici ( 1036002 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @09:34AM (#33520376)

    Companies that disagree with you have no requirement to broadcast your message.

    Unless of course they have already signed a contract with you to do so. Which amazingly enough, is exactly what Rackspace has done. So, I want to know what they are calling "hate speech". Is it burning the Quran? If so, they are being unreasonable. This is not to say that I would be surprised if the "church" in question had posted material that is inflamatory enough to be considered "hate speech" (although I consider the idea of labeling something "hate speech" repugnant), just that burning the Quran does not reach that level.

  • by cygnwolf ( 601176 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @09:40AM (#33520456)
    The Civil Rights acts says you can't look at someone and say, "I don't like your type, I'm not going to serve you." It does NOT prevent you from saying "You broke our rules about good behavior and now we won't serve you." or "You're an ass and you're giving us a bad name, so we don't want to be associated with you any more." Contracts can sometimes force you to continue your association till your contract is up, but that's why there's clauses for that.
  • Re:well done (Score:3, Informative)

    by Urza9814 ( 883915 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @09:40AM (#33520460)

    ISPs are utilities, hosting companies are not.
    And it's about a Terms of Service violation - common carrier status has absolutely _nothing_ to do with this case. That's like getting pissed at Facebook for banning spammers. Or getting pissed at Comcast for booting people who are running web hosts from residential connections. And again, it's a hosting company - if you don't like the terms, there is a near infinite number of others out there for you to choose from. This isn't like an ISP, where some people only have a choice between Comcast and...Comcast.

  • by hedpe2003 ( 1735078 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @09:51AM (#33520686)
    Last night I watched My Trip to Al Qaeda [thedailybeast.com]. Lawrence Wright has spent more time with hands on research than anyone I have seen. It seemed, to me, his main point was the fact that radicalism feeds entirely on humiliation and anger - including the humiliation of the Islamic faith by the West. What really is the point here on burning a pile of Korans on 9/11 than to humiliate and anger the moderate and extreme Muslims. It's very distasteful. Trying not to sound like I am just quoting the movie (yet whole hardily agreeing to the message that) we should stand up for what America believes in - and stop playing our role in the story Bin Laden narrates - one of a holy war against the Muslim faith.

    Whatever your point of view on the subject - this documentary is definately a must see.
  • by jDeepbeep ( 913892 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @09:53AM (#33520738)
    The reference was to WBC, and not to the history of Christianity. Troll less obviously.
  • Re:Satire (Score:2, Informative)

    by DarkFencer ( 260473 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @09:54AM (#33520752)

    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.

    I'm really freaking tired of this argument. Those crazy muslims/japanese/germans/vietnamese/enemy-of-the-day" are doing worse! So us doing what we're talking about is fine!

    Just because there are bad people doing bad things DOES NOT MEAN WE NEED TO GO TO THAT LEVEL. All these actions does let the extremists use their propaganda to show how bad we are. Its a vicious cycle.

  • Re:Stupid (Score:2, Informative)

    by tophermeyer ( 1573841 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @09:56AM (#33520804)

    And it's clear they define "hate speech" as anything Rackspace hates


    This church is burning copies of the Quran! If a Mosque decided they want to make a public display of burning some bibles I bet we would all agree that's hate speech.

    You can't come down on a business organization for distancing themselves from that vitriol. They didn't stick their nose into anything. They just cut ties to a customer they no longer wanted to service. Happens all the time.

  • Re:well done (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 09, 2010 @10:02AM (#33520938)

    This is called Dhimmitude...
    Muslims tend to enforce Dhimitude on to non-muslims with violence.

    I for one will not greet our new 'Dhimmitude Demanding' Mohammedan Overlords!

    link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmitude

    Razgorov Prikazka

  • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @10:07AM (#33521030) Homepage Journal

    Do you have a right to breathe air? To occupy some region of spacetime?

    It's silly to talk about the right to do something you can't avoid doing. What you need to talk about is what people *do* with those things. I have a right to breathe, but not to stick my face right in front of yours and breath on it. I have a right to occupy some region of space, but that doesn't entitle me to walk into your house and occupy some of *that* space.

    The problem is that people (on both sides of the issue) think that hate speech laws are intended to outlaw hate. Trying to outlaw hate would be nonsensical. It doesn't make sense to outlaw even *hateful* speech. For example I don't think there's any point to trying to outlaw the idiocy of these Bible thumping morons who want to burn the Quran. It's better for them to display their feeble-mindedness in public than encourage them to nurse it in private. All hate speech is odious, stupid and bigoted, but not all odious, stupid and bigoted speech is hate speech.

    We ought to restrict the term "hate speech" to threats that a reasonable person would judge to restrict the legitimate freedoms of the target *and* (this is what makes it different from a simple threat) everybody like them. Burning a cross on somebody's front lawn is more than simple trespass. It is a message to an entire group of people to stop living as if they were free. This test ought to be applied strictly. If we do so, then these blockheads burning the Quran are not engaging in hate speech, just *hateful* speech. While they will certainly make some people feel threatened, this is not specific enough in its target to be a threat.

    Things might be different if they were burning the Quran in front of a mosque. Unfortunately, this is one of those things were context matters. That happens all the time in free speech issues. If I say that "Blacks should be forced to move out of this town," at a university symposium on race, I'm just expressing an odious opinion. If I say that in front of an angry drunken mob that's formed after a rumor that a black man raped a white girl, that's an entirely different act although superficially the same. It's an incitement to riot and murder.

    Hate speech is specifically speech which is intended to restrict the rights of others by instilling fear.

  • by Shakrai ( 717556 ) * on Thursday September 09, 2010 @10:15AM (#33521180) Journal

    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.

    You'll note that they've never done anything particularly offensive about Islam. The real lesson here is that the Catholics, Mormons and Scientology need to start issuing death threats when South Park insults them. Then the corporate overlords will cave and prevent the South Park guys from mocking their religion.....

  • by voss ( 52565 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @10:23AM (#33521326)

    "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:Stupid (Score:5, Informative)

    by NiteShaed ( 315799 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @10:30AM (#33521466)

    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.

  • by Helios1182 ( 629010 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @10:36AM (#33521572)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 09, 2010 @10:45AM (#33521712)

    There's a mosque 3 blocks away from the one that they're trying to build, so it's not like there's no precedent. The people that go to the existing mosque have to wait outside because there is not enough room for them to attend services. Only a lunatic would view it as a victory mosque. What if it's a form of atonement for sins committed in the name of your religion?

  • by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 ) * <Satanicpuppy.gmail@com> on Thursday September 09, 2010 @10:45AM (#33521720) Journal

    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:Stupid (Score:3, Informative)

    by blueg3 ( 192743 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @10:50AM (#33521802)

    Islamic world: "Die for insulting our moon god!"

    Pro tip: Christians, Muslims, and Jews all have the same god.

  • Re:Lunatic? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Cally ( 10873 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @10:53AM (#33521862) Homepage
    From today's paper (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/09/us-soldiers-afghan-civilians-fingers):

    US soldiers 'killed Afghan civilians for sport and collected fingers as trophies'

    Twelve American soldiers face charges over a secret "kill team" that allegedly blew up and shot Afghan civilians at random and collected their fingers as trophies. [...]

  • by DragonWriter ( 970822 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @11:01AM (#33522032)

    Yes, but the whole point of network neutrality is that free speech laws should apply to ISP's.

    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:3, Informative)

    by chill ( 34294 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @11:05AM (#33522128) Journal

    That is really what we have. Section 501c(3) of the Internal Revenue Code gives the details. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p557/ch03.html [irs.gov]

  • by hrvatska ( 790627 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @11:07AM (#33522152)

    You're the first I've seen making any reference to "intimidation," which is entirely subjective. How are they being intimidating?

    In much the same way as Americans might feel if I started selling toilet paper with the US flag on it.

    In and of itself, that would be insulting and disrespectful, but not intimidating. I don't know of any Americans that would feel intimidated by putting the US flag on toilet paper, or burning the flag, for that matter.

  • by yyxx ( 1812612 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @11:12AM (#33522222)

    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:Stupid (Score:4, Informative)

    by NiteShaed ( 315799 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @11:13AM (#33522256)

    Regardless of content too, obviously.

    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?

    And rackspace most definitely is a network provider too

    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.

  • by TommyGunn32 ( 1866158 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @11:13AM (#33522262)

    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?

    No double standard there, you just don't know what you're talking about.

    I never thought I'd quote Fox News, but I'm sure you consider it valid news since the mosque offends you..

    "St. Nicholas Orthodox Church has always had and will continue to have the right to rebuild on its original location. The question was whether public money would be spent to build a much larger church at a separate location on the site and ensuring that construction wouldn't delay the World Trade Center further," spokesman Stephen Sigmund said in a written statement. "On that question, we worked for many years to reach an agreement and offered up to 60 million dollars of public money to build that much larger new church. After reaching what we believed was an agreement in 2008, representatives of the church wanted even more public commitments, including unacceptable approvals on the design of the Vehicle Security Center that threatened to further delay the construction on the World Trade Center and the potential for another $20 million of public funds."

    Sigmund said the "final offer" was made last year, which again included $60 million.

    "They rejected that offer," he said.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/18/leaders-disappointed-government-declares-deal-rebuild-ground-zero-church-dead/ [foxnews.com]

  • Re:Stupid (Score:3, Informative)

    by OeLeWaPpErKe ( 412765 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @11:26AM (#33522470) Homepage

    So AT&T could simply refuse to interconnect with anyone hosting skype servers and that'd be okay with you ?

    Somehow I doubt it.

    And obviously it violated network neutrality when AT&T intentionally slowed down the sip protocol. Easy enough to do on today's network equipment, and this was obviously seen as a gross violation of net neutrality.

  • Re:Stupid (Score:4, Informative)

    by NiteShaed ( 315799 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @11:41AM (#33522716)



    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:3, Informative)

    by blueg3 ( 192743 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @11:51AM (#33522892)

    The theory that Allah is actually the Sumerian Hubal is widely-rejected. The term "Al-Ilah", meaning "the worshipable" was widely used enough that using it as an etymological basis is shaky at best.

    And if you believe that, you betray your lack of intelligence and education.

    Apparently along with nearly all other students of Abrahamic religions.

  • Re:Stupid (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 09, 2010 @12:01PM (#33523048)

        Have you read the Rackspace AUP [rackspace.com]?

    Any conduct that is likely to result in retaliation against the Rackspace network or website, or Rackspace's employees, officers or other agents, including engaging in behavior that results in any server being the target of a denial of service attack (DoS).

    You may not publish, transmit or store on or via Rackspace's network and equipment any content or links to any content that Rackspace reasonably believes: ...

    is excessively violent, incites violence, threatens violence, or contains harassing content or hate speech;

        Really, I wouldn't want to be hosting them either. They're bound to be under some pretty significant DoS attacks just from the announcement. There can and will likely be violence that happens if they do their book burning event. There's no question, they are burning Qurans is very obviously to incite violence. What else are they doing it for? To save the environment? To get rid of Quran overstock? To destroy damaged Qurans from their library. No, they're trying to pick fights. Unfortunately, he's doing it from the relative safety of the US. He should go play his game in the middle east. He's taunting a fight that he's not prepared to win.

  • Re:well done (Score:2, Informative)

    by archmcd ( 1789532 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @12:39PM (#33523702)

    I disagree with the free speech argument here, as this douchebag's hosting company pulled the plug on him on their own, not due to a court order or criminal proceedings. They have just as much right to express their freedom of speech by disagreeing through the act of pulling the plug on his website as this guy has to burn books. Freedom of speech doesn't protect you from consequences outside of the legal system, including someone disagreeing and not allowing you to use their platform to spout nonsense. Try again. You'll have an argument if the government orders his website shut down after he decides to host it himself.

  • by davev2.0 ( 1873518 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @01:08PM (#33524160)

    Yes, it is acceptable for a web host to only host Christian, or Linux, or non-profit pages. That is the beauty of freedom.

    Being free means one is free to do say "I only want to host websites that support my views and that I like".

    Businesses have the right to refuse to do business with groups they believe will hurt the business including hurting the businesses reputation. This is also why politically biased newspapers and websites don't have to host opposing views.

    To turn your your own phrase against you

    there's really no difference between saying "you can't use this service for promoting Republican ideals" and saying "this service can't be used by for-profit entities"

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 09, 2010 @01:09PM (#33524170)

    Religion of peace excerpts:

    Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

    Qur'an (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

    Qur'an (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

    Qur'an (47:4) - "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,"

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm [thereligionofpeace.com]

    And don't give me old testament bible, there is a new covenant out there that supersedes the old.

    Posted AC 'cause the ROP ain't so P.

  • by frank_adrian314159 ( 469671 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @01:46PM (#33524752) Homepage

    Any public figure weighing in against any of these activities should be impeached immediately.

    Ummm, no, they should not.

    'Freedom' means freedom from opinion as well.

    Wrong again, O Great Constitutional Scholar. If you don't want to hear what others are saying, you can always stick your fingers in your ears. You have no constitutional right to be shielded from speech that displeases you.

    Those public servants surrendered their right to impune others for their protected speech the moment they were sworn in.

    No, they did not. Free speech rights are rights for everyone, including those who have been elected to public office. Public servants should not arrest, imprison, prosecute, or otherwise harass those exercising their free speech rights (and are often called on the carpet by the courts when they attempt to do so), but calling someone a jackass and asking them not to be the same is not disallowed, which is about as far as anyone has gone in this case (and by "this case", I mean the whole Koran burning thing - which I happen to think is a stupid and ridiculous thing done by a rather repulsive fundamentalist publicity seeker masquerading as a preacher) and I would just as vehemently defend the people inveighing against the building of the Muslim Community Center, no matter how stupid their position is.

  • Re:Stupid (Score:5, Informative)

    by chrb ( 1083577 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @02:46PM (#33525666)

    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:3, Informative)

    by horza ( 87255 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @03:14PM (#33526104) Homepage

    Businesses refuse to business with other businesses all the time. Dell are more than happy to ditch Linux distro providers every time Microsoft click their fingers, and that involves real costs too (in terms of money and also freedom for the public). As long as they respect their written contracts, and provide a reasonable notice period to ensure a smooth transition, there isn't much you can do.

    I run my own company, and one of the pleasures is that I don't have to work with people I decide I don't like. I really wouldn't appreciate being forced to.


"Yeah, but you're taking the universe out of context."