Oh there are plenty of hosts out there that will host anything including illegal activities. Plus that's not how the internet works. People don't realize that their own computers can be hosts. You have an IP and can host a site right on your own computer so if you want to broadcast something you don't have to rely on hosting companies. Like I said, a business can pretty much run it any way they want. I can see serious freedoms restricted if we start to tell business servers they have to host sites they don't want to.
Yes it is interesting that many will support the one side and allow their hate speeches to be on their web servers but block any opposing views. This is just another way that our freedom of speech is being taken away from us. The news media is doing the same things telling the people that the leftist are right but anyone from the right side is hateful and needs to be punished.
That's not exactly the case. If that were the case then the bakery that wouldn't bake the gay couple a cake wouldn't have lost their case. And a restaurant would be able to say no blacks allowed. They aren't. One is not allowed to discriminate against someone in the course of business if it restricts Constitutionally protected rights.
Edited: Abnninja on 8th Sep, 2017 - 8:40pm
I was just using that as an example but if you want to go technical again… when you are on a server then you are also part of their IP subnet or their address so whatever you do there DOES reflect them. In your example the couple takes the cake and leaves, that's it but in the cyber world, using your same example, the couple uses your premises and 'name' to starts selling their stuff that you would want sold on your premises because it bring unnecessary stress like DDOS attacks, etc. So the terms of providers are a lot different than what you would expect its just that no one reads the small print but its always been like this.
I understand what you just said and I get the terms. My point is those terms may not stand up in a court of law. Especially when it goes to the Supreme Court, which is notoriously liberal in its interpretation of free speech no matter the makeup of conservative vs liberal Justices.
I understand all too well what Coder is addressing. While I do not know if the Neo-Nazis will go to court there is a first hand example of a case like this here: The Daily Stormer kicked off server by GoDaddy.
Yes, the thing is, will this stand if they take it to court. Our Supreme Court take an incredibly broad view when it comes to freedom of speech. If this group, or any group, decided to sue and the Justices determine that this site is restricting freedom of speech then all of these restrictions become moot because they'd be illegal.
Sometimes on ones own site it can get hijacked in the name of freedom of speech. I think that is why some people can be very selective and set in their rules things about hate speech or attacking others so as to not have the site taken over by either site due to their views and what they wish for their freedoms of speech. Sometimes freedom of speech has to be curtailed when it comes to be harmful to others or attacks a certain type of people. Just where that line is drawn is the shady area.