Rackspace Shuts Down Koran-Burning Web Site

http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/09/09/rackspace-shuts-down-koran-burning-web-site/

by 1SockChuck • 16 years ago

17 47 16 years ago

greenlblue4• 16 years ago

Rackspace did the right thing. This is not a free speech issue since there are more articulate ways of expressing your dislike of some belief system without desecrating objects that a certain group considers valuable.

tptacek5• 16 years ago

No, it's not a "free speech issue" because you have no right under the Constitution to post whatever you'd like on Rackspace's private property, and the contract you enter into to post anything there specifically enjoins you from posting "harassing" or "hate" speech.

Sorry to be pedantic, but people have weird ideas about what the 1st Amendment actually means. "Congress shall make no law" does not mean "Rackspace shall make no rule".

rbanffy9• 16 years ago

In other words, you have no free speech on the internet because all the routers, wires, servers, links, modems are the property of their owners and they are free to censor whatever you post as long as they have sufficiently ambiguous clauses on their contracts that may or may not involve you as a part.

How far can you bend your constitution before it breaks?

greenlblue4• 16 years ago

As good citizens of a country Rackspace personnel also abide by certain rules and one of those is abiding by the laws of the land. The US constitution is pretty explicit about limiting expression and free speech so I can see how it could be argued that this is a free speech issue but that was not the point I was making.

Andrew_Quentin• 16 years ago

Supposing it was New York Time, sure something quite unimaginable, but supposing this web host decides to terminate their contract and no other host in the country would provide them with a hosting service, would that be an infringement of freedom of speech?

Perhaps if we view it from the perspective of the black letter of the law, that is the constitution, the highest law of that country, it might not be an infringement. However freedom of speech goes beyond the constitution, it is a principle ingrained in our society and culture.

To address your differences between private and public, a newspaper of course has no obligation to give him space in their platform, nor the television, but the internet is different. The former two are selective, the internet is free for all. If private bodies are able to go around policing the kind of content that is to be found on the net, the difference between them and the government is a mere technicality.

rbanffy9• 16 years ago

So, free speech is only allowed for adequately articulate forms of expression, as judged by Rackspace management.

No. This is a free speech issue. Those who feel offended are also free to burn bibles and desecrate whatever they feel proper.

As much as we disagree with the book burning festival (it is a stupid thing to do and there are much more articulate ways to express disagreement with Islam), I find freedom of speech is a much more important issue than the sensitivities of religious groups.

mx12• 16 years ago

I would disagree. They signed the contract with rackspace that said they would abide by their polices and if they violated them, they would shut down the site. Nothing is stopping the church from hosting their own website.

daychilde2• 16 years ago

I don't know if the laws have changed since 1995, but back then when I worked for AT&T, you could have your telephone service turned off for using profanity across state lines.

I was actually a part of making this happen for someone who called in -- I had a high voice at the time, got called "ma'am" a lot. A male customer was coming on to me, wanted to send me flowers. As I was trying to assist them, I noticed the call records - some employee codes I recognized as males had notes like "lost call" and "customer hung up"; females had notes like "customer made inappropriate comments". Long story short, a supervisor listened in, and after they made sexual advances and used profanity, got their telephone service cut off (and I don't just mean long distance, I mean local service - the LECs in those days still had a good relationship with AT&T)...

So where's the right of free speech there?

Still not quite the same issue, because that involved federal law, whereas this is regarding Rackspace contracts... But it's an example of something trumping free speech.

The shorter and more classic example is the [lack of] right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre [when there is no fire].

subpixel• 16 years ago

Well, good.

haseman2• 16 years ago

While I like this in theory (because burning the Koran en mass is a stupid idea) I'm troubled by it in practice. Does this mean that if I espouse on an idea that Rackspace doesn't like they'll pull my service? Obviously this has nothing to do with the 1st amendment... Rackspace may terminate my use of their property by grounds in the contract I've signed with them. I'm not sure, however, I like the idea of a hosting company policing the ideas that are posted on their servers.

TWAndrews3• 16 years ago

It sounds like it, assuming the way your idea is espoused violates TOS that you agreed to.

haseman2• 16 years ago

Fair point, I guess if a movement to burn the Koran "...contains harassing content or hate speech" I have to wonder what other ideas and writings, in Rackspace's considered opinion, might violate that clause in their TOS? As this isn't a legal or constitutional issue, one presumes they aren't using the legal tests for hate speech/hate crimes. Is this a 'I'll know it when i see it' sorta test?

pigbucket• 16 years ago

It sounds kind of scary when you put it like that, but generally I've no principled objection to a server policing its hosted content for contract compliance as long as it's not the only hosting game in town. If I'm looking for a server, I get to choose whether I trust or want Rackspace. If I'm looking to provide a service, I get to choose whether I want to provide it to crazy dangerous guy. If the guy doesn't think he broke the contract (I don't know what he actually had on the site) let him complain. Otherwise, he can a) find another server that doesn't care about how nuts he is, b) set up his own server, c) exercise his free hate speech from his personal pulpit, or d) join the presumably already established subreddit for Bookburners against Censorship.

photon_off• 16 years ago

If Rackspace doesn't like your idea, and takes your idea down, you no longer pay Rackspace. Instead, you'll go and pay one of their competitors to host your message. Rackspace may like policing, but they probably would enjoy spending your money more.

If all hosting companies decide that "Quran book-burning messages will not be hosted", then you have the freedom to start your own niche business that services these needs. Money: It makes the world go 'round.

brg• 16 years ago

I am no lawyer, but along the lines of your question: by asserting editorial control of the pages they host, is Rackspace abandoning the safe-harbor protections of the DMCA?

TWAndrews3• 16 years ago

People who think this is a free speech issue wrt Rackspace are confused about how the first amendment works. The right to free speech, is not the right to a platform from which to speak. This was the law-of-the land before the internet even existed.

Back before Craigslist killed classified, news papers absolutely had terms which specified which content they would or wouldn't run.

jgranby• 16 years ago

The "constitutional" aspect (if there is one) isn't the issue, though. The issue is whether I, you, or anyone else, wants a web host that takes down web sites it disapproves of. A web host can take down websites for misusing apostrophes, if it is entitled to by contract (if there's a broadly drafted term in the contract, this might even be possible in the real world, not just hypothetically). But would you want to do business with them?

gwright• 16 years ago

I'm usually impressed by the discussion on Hacker News but the amount of ignorance about the nature of the 1st Amendment and the difference between government and private actions in this discussion is disheartening.

The US 1st Amendment is a restriction on government actions not a restriction on private actions or private contracts. There may be other legal reasons why private actions might be controlled or regulated but please don't point to the 1st Amendment in order to justify that control.

Finally, where do people get the idea that the concept of 'free speech' includes the notion that other people, companies, or the government are required to support and assist you in communicating your message? The freedom to 'speak' without government coercion is not a guarantee that your speech won't be met with ridicule, criticism, rejection, or counterargument and appeals to your 'free speech' rights being violated when that happens is absurd.

boltofblue• 16 years ago

I understand why

.... except..... there are about a billion images, jokes, articles, sites degrading Jesus Christ and advocating destroying Christianity

Rackspace Shuts Down Koran-Burning Web Site

Related Stories