Hate Sites... what's a webhost to do? Options

[Still Waters]

Race-based and religion-based hate sites... Legal? Illegal? Is it unprofessional to leave race and religion hate-incitement material on your server? Is it unprofessional to remove it? What about the concept of socially responsibile business management?

These are tough issues for web hosting companies. If you were a webhost, what would you do, and why?

(This is a very wide topic. If you need a concrete example of a web site that presents race-based and religion-based material designed to persuade others to hate fellow humans on the basis of race or religion... please see jewwatch .com.)

------------------------------------------------------
IMHO, I would not tolerate race-based or religion-based hate sites on my servers (if I were a webhost). I consider webhosts that allow such content on their servers to be socially irresponsible. And I view them as behaving unprofessionally, in terms of lack of respect for other customers.

[bragadocchio]

There's a link listed in blogdex right now pointing to a GoDaddy page that describes their private registration.

The blodex titles usually reflect the anchor text that points to a page from more than one blog. In this instance, the anchor text is:

Morally Objectionable Activities

and the list entry on Go Daddy that uses those words is:

But don't even think about using a private registration to transmit Spam, violate the law or engage in morally objectionable activities.

Those words are also anchor text on the GoDaddy site, and they state that, amongst other uses, they refuse to let people use a private registration for a site following some questionable practices..

But...

What about freedom of speech?

Who determines what is a "hate" site, and what is a site filled with criticism? Where do we draw the line? Who is it we let make that determination?

We have the opportunity to use civil suits to try to stop people from publishing defamatory or harmful material. We can apply for injunctions and restraining orders. How effective will one of those legal actions be in a site that is filled with bile and hatred?

What about the concept of socially responsibile business management?

I think that it is important the businesses and corporations act as socially aware and responsible entities. Some of them don't. The bottom line for some companies is returing value, in the form of money, to shareholders.

It may be more profitable to provide a home to people no one else wants to host. Or it may make a company the target of presure from people who are spammed from such a destination. Or find a hate filled site hosted there. An the target of litigation and legal costs.

There are quite a few Internet Service Providers who post and follow Acceptible Use Policies (AUP), who don't allow hate sites, or obscenity, or spam, etc. As a host, it's possibly a smart thing to do from a business perspective, and a moral perspective, to adopt a good AUP, and avoid potential problems.


Should people be allowed to fill up pages on the web with hatred?

[bragadocchio]

I'd like to add that my fear about censorship is a fear of laws from governments like paragraph 202 of the Czech penal code as described by Vaclav Havel in this essay he wrote a few years before he becme President of the Czech Republic:

Kicking the Door

[bragadocchio]

The site pointed to in the first post was one that has been the subject of some controversy over the past week or so.

It was showing up first on a search for the word "Jew."

Here's a link to Google's Explanation of the subject.

[bwelford]

I think Google handled this correctly.

One of the great strengths of the Internet is that so many brains are interacting with it. Everything is also very transparent if you know how to look. Of course how does A in Catalonia realize that B in Wigan, England exists and has a similar interest in searching out the truth. Well at least it's better than before. You have blogs that the search engines are pretty good at cataloguing. You have Forums like this. One way or another A may "meet up" with B and they can combine their efforts. It's very much easier for a counter-reaction to develop to any action.

Just think before the Internet existed. A hate organization could print up 10,000 leaflets and its devotees could hand them out. How could the rest of the population even be aware of this and try to mount some counter-reaction?

In some ways it's better to get things out in to the open of the Internet. Then at least if crimes are being committed, it's easier to nail the perpetrators.

[bragadocchio]

They may be doing more than just a link to an explanation for this particular site.

This story form the San Francisco Chronicle notes that they are considering returning to category labels for sites, and the use of a separate label for hate sites:

Google revisits policy on hate sites

I agree about bringing stuff like this out into the sunlight, where it can be seen by people.

[JohnG]

The "right to free speech" (presuming we are discussing political speech and not commercial speech) is a right granted to a person to restrain intrusive State behavior.

(When I use the word "person" I am using it in the broad sense to cover individuals, corporations and so forth.)

In the case of a web host, the rules are different.

A web host is renting server space. The host runs a commercial service and charges a fee.

This allows a person the ability to access the Internet with a website.

The terms of what the person can host on the server are governed by the Contract between the webhost and the user.

A prudent business person will have terms of service preventing use of the service to promote hate, defame others and so forth.

Of course this does not preclude someone from buying a server and accessing the net directly from that person's home or place of work.

Still the access is governed by the terms of Contract between the person and the access provider and again the same approach would be best.

In the United States, the regulatory agency which has the authority to specifically regulate Internet access services is the Federal Communications Commission. If some sort of crime is committed, it falls under the Department of Justice. And if you commit an unfair trade practice, expect a knock on the door from the Federal Trade Commission,

(These are general statements)

Unlike telephone and television, to date the FCC has taken a hands off approach, unless the matter involves a threat to national security, or a specific crime has been committed (Say hello to the FBI and DOJ) or you are committing an unfair trade practice. (Dust off the welcome mat for the FTC.)

(I have not spoken about Canada, simply because Federal government agencies have for the most part taken their lead from the US Federal government agencies.)

In North America it is generally a matter of self-regulation and we fall back on the concepts expressed in the Netiquette Guidelines, which is really a common sense statement of hey folks, be on good behavior and do the right thing.

All that being said, were it me, though I strongly believe in free speech, I would probably come down on the side of "this ain't right" and kick the site off of my servers, after talking it over with my spirtual advisor and my lawyer.

(And were the site hosted in Canada, I believe there are Federal Criminal Code provisions dealing with this kind of behavior although I try to avoid reading the Criminal Code, it not being my favorite bed time reading.)

But if other folks were pressuring me to take the site down as the web host, making a big fuss about it, I might be tempted to say, buzz off, just to be contrarian and as I have a rather impish sense of humor at times.

(I can see a huge circus and lots of publicity. So the good side of me says - do the right thing. The bad side of me says - lets be a rabble rouser and have some fun. Of course, depending on the circumstances the two may come together and there may be a justifiable point to make using the publicity for a valid purpose.)

Of course in the EU, ah ... our dear friends in Brussels ... a totally different approach.

Remember the French judge, Yahoo! and the sale online of Nazi memorabillia?

I will leave it to others to discuss:

* The various treaties introduced by the EU to allow nation states to specifically control hate crime sites on the Net, along with

* The resulting clash this results between our rights as citizens of Canadan or the United States, versus the regulatory authority of nation states in the EU to block websites hosted in North America.

Bottom line? The issue is troubling and to give a proper answer you would have to look at a specific web site, judge it against standards of accepted common decency and make a decision, keeping in mind your obligations as a Net citizen.

Kind regards,

John Glube
Toronto, Canada

[tam]

I think a webhosting provider would also have to bare in mind the other sites they host. A controversial site might become a target of atacks against the network with the aim of bringing the host/site down. It could also have a negative effect on their business if they were seen as providing a service for such a site. Google did well, the newsreports show them in quite a positive light dispite the fact they didn't remove the site from the listings.

Tam

[JohnG]

Barry,

You wrote:

I think Google handled this correctly.

A couple of weeks ago, there was fire bombing of a Jewish parochial school in Montreal.

An islamist group claimed credit. I forget the exact words used, but something about this was in retribution for the school's support for Israel.

The Prime Minister of Canada, Paul Martin while in Montreal made a speech expressing his dismay and saying something like, this behavior is not acceptable in our Canada.

George Jonas wrote a rather strong editorial in the National Post, (the other national paper in Toronto) owned by the Asper family of Winnepeg (who happen to be Jewish) in which he condemned Martin's comments as being weak, apologetic and not sufficient.

Jonas lived through Nazi Germany and therefore writes on the topic with a unique perspective.

My point is simply this. I understand Google's stance, but at the same time this stuff is part of the scourge of society.

So, depending on your perspective you can say Google's stance was fine, or you can say, Google's stance was similar to the stance people took prior to H****r's Nazi party taking over the Reichstag in 1933 and look were that got us.

The problem is this.

In 1993 an islamisist militant group declared war on the United States and bombed the World Trade Center.

The United States government first looked at the situation as a crime, then as a terrorist attack and one day woke up to over 2,300 citizens dead and the World Trade Center destroyed.

So, while it's fine for Google to say, we are objective and above all of this stuff, there is another side to the coin.

Only time will tell whether the folks at Google and others, made the same mistake as the good people in the US government in made in 1993 and others have made in the past in dealing with this sort of scourge behavior. How? By expressing horror and shame, but at the same time refusing to really do anything until it was too late.

Kind regards,

John

P.S. In referencing the National Post as the other national paper in Toronto, I also should reference the Montreal Gazette, as the other real national paper in Canada. Cheers, John

John Glube
Toronto, Canada