[SlashRaid]

I ran across an article today on NewsFactor today that made me wonder what some others would have to say about the subject.

I know some of you out there have your own hosting service so please chime in here. The above linked article talks of a Web Site that offers supportive comments to the events of Sept. 11th. The DOJ knows of the site and the fact that it is hosted here in the United States. The site is still up due to the fact that it doesn't solicit money for terrorist activities. So basically it's protected under freedom of speech.

If you were hosting this site would you feel torn morally between freedom of speech and your feelings about what is said? Could you legally be bound to let the site remain due to loop holes in the terms of service agreement?

Just thought this might be an interesting discussion....

This doesn't just mean terrorism. What about hate groups, sex, anything that maybe questionable on your moral grounds.

[skyhawk133]

Every 'Terms of Service' I've written or agreed to had a clause stating that my site could be removed with [x] days notice for any reason not listed in the terms of service. Basically meaning, if you piss of the sysadmin one day and he can remove your site :)

[SlashRaid]

That is the way it should be done. If I ran that type of business I'd have that option built in to. The sysadmin should always have the final say about what he will and/or will not allow on his/her server. Period.

[jaredigital]

i support free speech as well as the right of the people to oppose anything they disagree with. if OLM was my webhost, you can believe i would be immediately severing my relationship with them and encouraging others to do the same.

[WebDevTool]

Funny, I'm all for free speech... and yet I'm STILL completely relieved to see this site returning 404!!!

It's GONE ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

scumbags

(Edited by WebDevTool at 4:48 pm on April 3, 2002)

[The Neoracle]

It's just like any business. I own a print shop (my mum does) and if someone brings in stuff that we don't want to copy, we won't. It's pretty simple, it's your computer, you renting out space and bandwidth, no where does it say your an equal opportunity server or some shit like that.  It's like saying that anyone has a right to put a sign on your property.

Now, should it be the DOJ's job to regulate it, fuck no. Screw them.  If I want to allow it or want it removed that's my business, not theres.

[Sem]

I completely agree with the notion that the webhost can yank a site due to content they find abhorrent. While the site creator has the right to express themselves, so does the person providing the vehicle for that expression - in this case the webserver. The webhost axing the user's account is a form of expression - an action that definitely speaks louder than words.

If the webmaster decides to buy the materials and put up their own server, then I have no problem with it, even if I find the contect objectionable.

It only becomes a civil liberties issue when the government gets involved.

(Edited by Sem at 3:54 pm on April 3, 2002)

[SlashRaid]

The DOJ doesn't try and regulate such sites. I think they know where such issues as free speech stand. The site was under investigation because of complaints due to the content. The DOJ stance was pretty much, as long as they aren't trying to collect money for terrorist groups, they have nothing to fear. Then again some of the content was calling for violence against Americans and American Intrests, to me that is a bit gray when it comes to free speech.

That is pretty funny that the site is gone. When I had posted this thread, they were still in action.

Some good responses here, thanks for adding to the discussion all. :wink:

(Edited by SlashRaid at 1:42 am on April 4, 2002)

[honkyinc]

I feel that it is the webhost's decision on whether or not to keep questionable content on their servers.

As was said before, if they want to purchase the equipment to host the site themselves, that is their business.  But if I was their host, that site would have been pulled the moment I saw it.

I also think the fact that the site is hosted in the US plays a big role in all this.  Talk about a ballsy move.