Selective freedom of speech. No matter how farked up these people are, they still have the right to say stupid things.

So, I RTFA, and my first thought was, "Man, I'm really disappointed that the author felt he had to tell us that this wasn't a free speech issue because the Constitution protects us from government intervention, it doesn't say that a private entity must sell us the right to broadcast our speech."

Then I read this:

jehovahs witness protection: Selective freedom of speech. No matter how farked up these people are, they still have the right to say stupid things.

Goddamnitsomuch, you're pretty stupid.

Wow. Boobies. I was expecting it a few posts down, but not first. Ignorance to the front of the line, perhaps.

Fortunately, it was only 1 post after that the issue was properly addressed.

However I don't doubt there will be more wharblgrbl about it further on down this page.

jehovahs witness protection: Selective freedom of speech. No matter how farked up these people are, they still have the right to say stupid things.

I agree that they have the right to say it, and the government can't legally do anything to stop them. But the ISP isn't the government. They don't have to host the site if they don't want to. So I take it you're selective free market, then?

ozone: jehovahs witness protection: Selective freedom of speech. No matter how farked up these people are, they still have the right to say stupid things.

I agree that they have the right to say it, and the government can't legally do anything to stop them. But the ISP isn't the government. They don't have to host the site if they don't want to. So I take it you're selective free market, then?

Exactly correct.

jehovahs witness protection: Selective freedom of speech. No matter how farked up these people are, they still have the right to say stupid things.

Contract violation. Period.

ozone: jehovahs witness protection: Selective freedom of speech. No matter how farked up these people are, they still have the right to say stupid things.

I agree that they have the right to say it, and the government can't legally do anything to stop them. But the ISP isn't the government. They don't have to host the site if they don't want to. So I take it you're selective free market, then?

And it's not like the ISP arbitrarily took it down--there was a legitimate violation, the ISP gave Jones the opportunity to take down the hate speech message, and he refused. So long, website!

/Sad that it took this long for an ISP to react
//Hell, reaction to Bonzai Kitty was swifter! That site must have gone through 20 ISP's within its first month

The jwp PWNAGE in this thread is impressive.

tnpir: The jwp PWNAGE in this thread is impressive.

Yeah, it's completely farking awesome when a a thread gets launched with a great big turd, and it gets the attention it was intended to get.

DoctorCal: Yeah, it's completely farking awesome when a a thread gets launched with a great big turd, and it gets the attention it was intended to get.

Well, there's really nothing else to talk about. Of course this isn't a free speech issue. Of course the ISP was well within it's rights to do this, and of course there will be morons who don't understand the 1st amendment WHATSOEVER who will oppose it.

Well, this thread's discussion topic seems to have been resolved pretty quickly.

Can it now turn into a redhead thread?

Imam - 'I'm going to build a mosque at ground zero'

Opposition - 'That's insensitive, a real dumbass move. You should move it'

FARK - ' STFU, opposition, they have a right!!!'

Pastor - 'I'm going to burn the Quran as a way of protesting the way we cower before extremeism'

Opposition - 'That's insensitive, a real dumbass move. You should reconsider'

FARK - 'OMG the poastor is such an asshole! I can't believe he would insult the Religion of Peace® in such an idiotic way.'


When you consider that the Imam practically said if he doesn't get his way, there will be retalitory action from extremists. This is FUBAR people...

jehovahs witness protection: Selective freedom of speech. No matter how farked up these people are, they still have the right to say stupid things.

If I was running an ISP, my rule would be no "high-risk hosting". That means no porn, no spam companies, no racism, no pro-terrorism pages or anything else that would make me a target for attack on my infrastructure.

A web host is not an Internet Service Provider.

1. This asshole should burn the Quran.
2. The mosque should be placed near Ground Zero.
3. The ISP is well within its rights.

All of these things fall within the protection of the First Amendment.

What scares me, however, is that you've got the President, top officials in both the State Department, Department of Justice, and the military, coming down on this little pissant so-called holy man because he wants to exercise his right to free speech under the Constitution. Don't they have more important things to worry about? I mean come on, that's giving Pastor Jones *EXACTLY* what he wants: Free publicity for him and his church.

And sending FBI agents to talk to him? If that doesn't scare you, it should. Maybe they were there to inform him of specific threats against him, which I suppose would be OK, but I think it's also likely that they were at least partly there to pressure him into not burning the Quran.

Bob_Laublaw: Well, this thread's discussion topic seems to have been resolved pretty quickly.

Can it now turn into a redhead thread?

Yes.

fireclown: The weird symmatry between the Mosque situation and the Koran burnination situation seems almost perfect.

Except you have to add like three extra dimensions of stupid before the math works out.

H31N0US: PC LOAD LETTER: If I was running an ISP, my rule would be no "high-risk hosting". That means no porn

I think I see the flaw in you business model.

I didn't say I wouldn't have a SEPARATE ISP specifically for porn that has a large staff of greyhat folks...

Madbassist1: Imam - 'I'm going to build a mosque at ground zero'

Opposition - 'That's insensitive, a real dumbass move. You should move it'

FARK - ' STFU, opposition, they have a right!!!'

Pastor - 'I'm going to burn the Quran as a way of protesting the way we cower before extremeism'

Opposition - 'That's insensitive, a real dumbass move. You should reconsider'

FARK - 'OMG the poastor is such an asshole! I can't believe he would insult the Religion of Peace® in such an idiotic way.'

You know. Jon Stewart said this best:

A Christian is an extremist if he wants to burn a Quaran, a Muslim is an extremist if he wants to read it.

If you honestly see no difference between opening a community center dedicated to improving relations between religions organized by a man that the previous president called his "envoy to the Muslim world", and a book burning organized by a man who is famous for attention whoring and considers Fred Phelps a friend, then maybe you need to take a step back.

cybrwzrd: Burn em all, and I'll bring the marshmellows.

Dude, the ink can contain heavy metals that are toxic. Don't eat the marshmallows if you toast them over any burning printed material.

dittybopper: 1. This asshole should burn the Quran.
2. The mosque should be placed near Ground Zero.
3. The ISP is well within its rights.

All of these things fall within the protection of the First Amendment.

As of yet, ISPs are not government entities.