Not really. I don't care for what they say, but it's important that they have the ability to say it. It's concerning that private companies, through registrars have the ability to erase viewpoints from the public internet. More signs that the internet be treated as a right.
I liken the internet to press. Most of it sucks, but having it and being able to freely speak through it, is essential to liberty.
I mean, if we as a society don't believe people like this should have a free internet like everyone else, we deserve the closed internet we will get. Freedom sucks because you have to listen to a lot of assholes, but it's much better than the alternative.
They can still say whatever they like, and, y'know what? Their fascist readers can even still get to it using their IP address-- at least, they could if they weren't hiding it behind CloudFlare.
This isn't censorship. As far as I know, no one has the "right" to an entry in the public DNS, nor is any registrar required to do business with Nazis. Registrars have the right to free association and speech too.
But besides that, my understanding is that though the internet is free, the various entities on the internet are equally free to refuse service. After all, if they were otherwise obligated, that would imply X's freedom can override Y's freedom, which also contradicts the nebulous ideal of freedom.
There are many privacy/free-speech oriented registrars and hosts. I hate being in the position to defend these types so often from short-sighted moralizers, but it absolutely won't work.
Exactly. This edges Google closer towards monopoly status and competition laws, I think.
But I wonder where on the internet unpopular speech will be hosted?
Even if the UN (and nations) declare internet a human right, where will content be hosted? Will the UN be able to force nations to change their laws to not persecute unpopular speech?
The First Amendment isn't a subsidy for speech. It just says you can say the most offensive thing you can cook up but no one owes you their ears, papers, or servers to furnish an audience.
the problem is that sometimes allowing one person free speech has the effect of silencing others. looking at history and the current political situation in the us, I think allowing neonazis free reign to express themselves does far more to stifle free speech than desiring censoring them does because of the threats of violence, both explicit and implicit, laced throughout everything they say and do.
I liken the internet to press. Most of it sucks, but having it and being able to freely speak through it, is essential to liberty.
I mean, if we as a society don't believe people like this should have a free internet like everyone else, we deserve the closed internet we will get. Freedom sucks because you have to listen to a lot of assholes, but it's much better than the alternative.