White-hating racists get Stormfront booted off the internet ! FIRST AMENMENT IS DEAD

[impuretrash]

The website that StormFront was on is owned by a private company. They decided to discontinue the site. No 1st Amendment violation there.

The only reason it was taken down is due to the hysterical media and corporate elite, from both sides of the aisle. Republicans have thrown all Trump supporting conservatives to the wolves, opening up the floodgates for violent suppression and corporate sponsored censorship. Anti-white racism has been normalized, it's hard not to notice unless you have your head buried in the sand or are one of those people who think white people deserve to be demonized, abused and replaced because of 'muh oppression'.

 

[Humorme]

Yeah, it is really simple. The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce public policy. I'm not a damn idiot. You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.

The bottom line is: The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.

If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either. You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.

But, again, it's amazingly simple: the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination. It's that simple, but it is a problem

No, it is not "legal discrimination". It is a case of cafeteria christians picking which bible verses they want to keep. They violated anti-discrimination laws. They didn't protest when the laws were passed.

OMG. It is what is known as legal discrimination. The left gets to cherry pick what the Constitution says.

BOTH sides cherry pick what they want the US Constitution says.

That's more accurate than what you previously said. In any event, the laws are skewed against the white people being able to believe in what they want to believe in. And there is always some rip roaring "legal" pretext used to avoid reality.

The website that StormFront was on is owned by a private company. They decided to discontinue the site. No 1st Amendment violation there.

Everybody understands that. But, people still have a Right to Free Speech, religion, etc.. Yes or no? If you claim that it only applies to the government, then you have to accept the fact that a law that forces someone to do things against their will in the private sector is a violation of their Rights as well...regardless of any statutory laws to the contrary.

The person in a private business should have the same right to accept or reject clientele based upon what the business owner wants. You can misapply laws all day long, but there are maxims of law that you should consider (which you obviously cannot.)

In the case of a baker who does not want to bake a cake for a gay couple, he does exactly what? Doesn't he run his business subject to the dictates of his conscience? But, he has to pay. He cannot "discriminate." However, the private company that owned the StormFront site can "discriminate." You simply choose to treat it differently when the bottom line is the same.

 

[Humorme]

OK... first of all, Freedom of Religion IS a First Amendment issue. But no matter how the left spins it, they have the right to force their views onto others and be protected against the right from putting their views out there.

The bakers lost because the government sticks it's head into the private sector for the purposes of enforcing "public policy" - the shy terminology for the unofficial state religion- secular humanism.

The gov't passed laws concerning discrimination. The bakers violated those laws. It is really that simple. They are welcome to their beliefs. But if your religion says you do not cater to blacks, you either get out of business or you violate that law.

Yeah, it is really simple. The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce public policy. I'm not a damn idiot. You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.

The bottom line is: The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.

If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either. You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.

But, again, it's amazingly simple: the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination. It's that simple, but it is a problem

Oh, for christ's sake.

Public accommodation laws have not been ruled unconstitutional. And you can't blame the left because you don't like those laws. The right controls the Executive branch, both chambers in the Congress, some 30 governorships. And those laws remain on the books and constitutional.

That is the dumbass post of the century. WHEN the laws were passed that I complain about, America was under the control of Democrats.

The right, even today, doesn't control squat. RINOs in Congress aren't on the right by a long shot. Add to that I am not right, but constitutionalist and you should understand... I have damn few allies on Capitol Hill.

LOLOL

Imbeciles like you could hold all 535 seats in Congress, all 9 USSC seats, and all 50 governorships-- and you'd still cry like a bitch that you don't control shit.

Here, this one's for you...

And you're the one trying to claim you are in the upper income bracket. What do you think it is that the people I vote for control?

I'm sick most of the time because I get nauseous having to choose between the lesser of two evils.

 

[Faun]

The gov't passed laws concerning discrimination. The bakers violated those laws. It is really that simple. They are welcome to their beliefs. But if your religion says you do not cater to blacks, you either get out of business or you violate that law.

Yeah, it is really simple. The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce public policy. I'm not a damn idiot. You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.

The bottom line is: The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.

If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either. You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.

But, again, it's amazingly simple: the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination. It's that simple, but it is a problem

Oh, for christ's sake.

Public accommodation laws have not been ruled unconstitutional. And you can't blame the left because you don't like those laws. The right controls the Executive branch, both chambers in the Congress, some 30 governorships. And those laws remain on the books and constitutional.

That is the dumbass post of the century. WHEN the laws were passed that I complain about, America was under the control of Democrats.

The right, even today, doesn't control squat. RINOs in Congress aren't on the right by a long shot. Add to that I am not right, but constitutionalist and you should understand... I have damn few allies on Capitol Hill.

LOLOL

Imbeciles like you could hold all 535 seats in Congress, all 9 USSC seats, and all 50 governorships-- and you'd still cry like a bitch that you don't control shit.

Here, this one's for you...

And you're the one trying to claim you are in the upper income bracket. What do you think it is that the people I vote for control?

I'm sick most of the time because I get nauseous having to choose between the lesser of two evils.

Who knows what you think my income has to go with my posts? But regardless, go cry me a river. I don't really care to hear another idiot on this forum whining victimhood.

 

[Faun]

No, it is not "legal discrimination". It is a case of cafeteria christians picking which bible verses they want to keep. They violated anti-discrimination laws. They didn't protest when the laws were passed.

OMG. It is what is known as legal discrimination. The left gets to cherry pick what the Constitution says.

BOTH sides cherry pick what they want the US Constitution says.

That's more accurate than what you previously said. In any event, the laws are skewed against the white people being able to believe in what they want to believe in. And there is always some rip roaring "legal" pretext used to avoid reality.

The website that StormFront was on is owned by a private company. They decided to discontinue the site. No 1st Amendment violation there.

Everybody understands that. But, people still have a Right to Free Speech, religion, etc.. Yes or no? If you claim that it only applies to the government, then you have to accept the fact that a law that forces someone to do things against their will in the private sector is a violation of their Rights as well...regardless of any statutory laws to the contrary.

The person in a private business should have the same right to accept or reject clientele based upon what the business owner wants. You can misapply laws all day long, but there are maxims of law that you should consider (which you obviously cannot.)

In the case of a baker who does not want to bake a cake for a gay couple, he does exactly what? Doesn't he run his business subject to the dictates of his conscience? But, he has to pay. He cannot "discriminate." However, the private company that owned the StormFront site can "discriminate." You simply choose to treat it differently when the bottom line is the same.

I'll ask again, maybe I'll get a answer this time....

Stormfront was dropped by their webhost for violating the terms of their service agreement. What agreement did the gay couple shopping for a cake violate to warrant being denied service by the baker?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

First of all, the case with the bakers had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

Second of all, the bakers lost because of anti-discrimination laws for businesses open to the public.

So if you ask walmart to bake a cake in the shape of a swastika, they should be required to do so.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Stormfront was dropped by their webhost for violating the terms of their service agreement. What agreement did the gay couple shopping for a cake violate to warrant being denied service by the baker?

As a previous poster explained, the baker has a policy not to bake cakes for fags. It's the same as the webhoster saying we do not provide service for white nationalists. Both are right or both are wrong. THINK, hater.

 

[westwall]

So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.

Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline

aug 26 2017 Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.

The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.

“Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”

At last you have posted something we can all celebrate.

I disagree. Now they will go underground and we won't have the ability to see what they are plotting. Far better to be able to watch what morons like that are doing in real time, then having to figure out what they were talking about after they have committed a crime.

 

[Faun]

Stormfront was dropped by their webhost for violating the terms of their service agreement. What agreement did the gay couple shopping for a cake violate to warrant being denied service by the baker?

As a previous poster explained, the baker has a policy not to bake cakes for fags. It's the same as the webhoster saying we do not provide service for white nationalists. Both are right or both are wrong. THINK, hater.

Where was that baker's terms of service written and when did the lesbian couple agree to it?

 

[EverCurious]

Again, as I hear it was /NOT/ the web host (basically a hard drive) that dropped them. It was the domain registrar. - aka the www.stormfront.org /name/ itself - the IP address registration used to be protected under America's 1st and ICANN until we stupidly gave it away in March. Already we see freedom of the internet being compromised. It is a horrible thing, you'll all have to learn the hard way it seems...

 

[Faun]

Again, as I hear it was /NOT/ the web host (basically a hard drive) that dropped them. It was the domain registrar. - aka the www.stormfront.org /name/ itself - the IP address registration used to be protected under America's 1st and ICANN until we stupidly gave it away in March. Already we see freedom of the internet being compromised. It is a horrible thing, you'll all have to learn the hard way it seems...

Stormfront violated Network Solutions, LLC acceptable terms of use contract, which Stormfront, like all of their customers, agree to abide by.

InQuent The Private Label Hosting Experts

Prohibited Uses

I. You and your customers agree to comply with all applicable local, state, national and international laws and regulations regarding use of all services delivered by Network Solutions. The following are prohibited uses of our services:

1. Transmission, distribution, uploading, posting or storage of any material in violation of any applicable law or regulation is prohibited. This includes, without limitation, material protected by copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property right used without proper authorization, material kept in violation of state laws or industry regulations such as social security numbers or credit card numbers, and material that is obscene, defamatory, libelous, unlawful, harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, constitutes an illegal threat, violates export control laws, hate propaganda, fraudulent material or fraudulent activity, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature. You or your customers may not transmit, distribute, or store material that contains a virus, "Trojan Horse," adware or spyware, corrupted data, or any software or information to promote or utilize software or any of Network Solutions services to deliver unsolicited e-mail. You and your customers further agree not to transmit any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, gives rise to civil liability or otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law or regulation.

Violations

If Network Solutions determines in its sole discretion that you or your customers conduct violate the terms of this Acceptable Use Policy, Network Solutions may suspend, restrict, terminate, or take any other appropriate action with regard to those services without any obligation to refund fees paid. Network Solutions reserves the right to take such actions without notice to you. You understand that we reserve the right to conclude that your or your customers’ conduct is in violation of the standards set forth in this Acceptable Use Policy, and we may arrive at such a conclusion even if it is based upon our opinion or mere suspicion or belief, without any duty to prove that our opinion or suspicion is well founded, and even if (i) our opinion or suspicion is proven not to be well founded or (ii) we provide other customers’ services that have similar characteristics or are being used in a similar manner as your services. You agree that we, in responding to a third party complaint, reserve the right in our sole discretion to suspend or terminate the services subject to this Acceptable Use Policy without notice and with no obligation to refund fees paid. You also understand and agree that by providing you services, Network Solutions in no way endorses your or your customers’ Web site or deems content to be suitable under the terms of this Agreement.​

 

[Humorme]

OMG. It is what is known as legal discrimination. The left gets to cherry pick what the Constitution says.

BOTH sides cherry pick what they want the US Constitution says.

That's more accurate than what you previously said. In any event, the laws are skewed against the white people being able to believe in what they want to believe in. And there is always some rip roaring "legal" pretext used to avoid reality.

The website that StormFront was on is owned by a private company. They decided to discontinue the site. No 1st Amendment violation there.

Everybody understands that. But, people still have a Right to Free Speech, religion, etc.. Yes or no? If you claim that it only applies to the government, then you have to accept the fact that a law that forces someone to do things against their will in the private sector is a violation of their Rights as well...regardless of any statutory laws to the contrary.

The person in a private business should have the same right to accept or reject clientele based upon what the business owner wants. You can misapply laws all day long, but there are maxims of law that you should consider (which you obviously cannot.)

In the case of a baker who does not want to bake a cake for a gay couple, he does exactly what? Doesn't he run his business subject to the dictates of his conscience? But, he has to pay. He cannot "discriminate." However, the private company that owned the StormFront site can "discriminate." You simply choose to treat it differently when the bottom line is the same.

I'll ask again, maybe I'll get a answer this time....

Stormfront was dropped by their webhost for violating the terms of their service agreement. What agreement did the gay couple shopping for a cake violate to warrant being denied service by the baker?

Don't be a dumb ass. You apply two different laws to justify a different result when the bottom line issue is the same:

The web host provided a service and were allowed to discriminate. The baker offered a service and was not allowed to discriminate.

The fact that you can create different statutes in order to justify an unjust outcome does not make what you say the right thing to do... and more importantly, constitutional (in a de jure / lawful, constitutional Republic.) That's your answer and if you don't like it... bite me.

 

[Humorme]

Yeah, it is really simple. The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce public policy. I'm not a damn idiot. You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.

The bottom line is: The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.

If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either. You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.

But, again, it's amazingly simple: the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination. It's that simple, but it is a problem

Oh, for christ's sake.

Public accommodation laws have not been ruled unconstitutional. And you can't blame the left because you don't like those laws. The right controls the Executive branch, both chambers in the Congress, some 30 governorships. And those laws remain on the books and constitutional.

That is the dumbass post of the century. WHEN the laws were passed that I complain about, America was under the control of Democrats.

The right, even today, doesn't control squat. RINOs in Congress aren't on the right by a long shot. Add to that I am not right, but constitutionalist and you should understand... I have damn few allies on Capitol Hill.

LOLOL

Imbeciles like you could hold all 535 seats in Congress, all 9 USSC seats, and all 50 governorships-- and you'd still cry like a bitch that you don't control shit.

Here, this one's for you...

And you're the one trying to claim you are in the upper income bracket. What do you think it is that the people I vote for control?

I'm sick most of the time because I get nauseous having to choose between the lesser of two evils.

Who knows what you think my income has to go with my posts? But regardless, go cry me a river. I don't really care to hear another idiot on this forum whining victimhood.

You must really think you're an idiot then, YOU are the one playing victim.

You post here every day, looking for people to troll. That tells me you don't have a job. You have too much of an ego, thinking this board jockeying makes a rip, so you aren't that well educated.

You are attempting to impute your shortcomings onto others, so you have an inferiority complex. You can't stay on point; you think every exchange is an opportunity for you to prove you are smarter than anyone you address when the opposite is a bit more accurate.

But, who knows. When you have an original idea or something more than you don't believe what others say and therefore they're idiots come back and talk with us. Other than that, unless you plan on going to PM and calling people out - I'm not going to be of much use to you. And if the posts keep being personal as opposed to addressing the topic, don't be surprised if I look up the ignore feature here.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

As a previous poster explained, the baker has a policy not to bake cakes for fags. It's the same as the webhoster saying we do not provide service for white nationalists. Both are right or both are wrong. THINK, hater.

Where was that baker's terms of service written and when did the lesbian couple agree to it?

HAHAHA. Who says it has to be written??

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
Stormfront violated Network Solutions, LLC acceptable terms of use contract, which Stormfront, like all of their customers, agree to abide by.

InQuent The Private Label Hosting Experts

Prohibited Uses

I. You and your customers agree to comply with all applicable local, state, national and international laws and regulations regarding use of all services delivered by Network Solutions. The following are prohibited uses of our services:

1. Transmission, distribution, uploading, posting or storage of any material in violation of any applicable law or regulation is prohibited. This includes, without limitation, material protected by copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property right used without proper authorization, material kept in violation of state laws or industry regulations such as social security numbers or credit card numbers, and material that is obscene, defamatory, libelous, unlawful, harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, constitutes an illegal threat, violates export control laws, hate propaganda, fraudulent material or fraudulent activity, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature. You or your customers may not transmit, distribute, or store material that contains a virus, "Trojan Horse," adware or spyware, corrupted data, or any software or information to promote or utilize software or any of Network Solutions services to deliver unsolicited e-mail. You and your customers further agree not to transmit any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, gives rise to civil liability or otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law or regulation.

Hate propaganda??? You mean like posters here at USMB who advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america?

 

[Faun]

BOTH sides cherry pick what they want the US Constitution says.

That's more accurate than what you previously said. In any event, the laws are skewed against the white people being able to believe in what they want to believe in. And there is always some rip roaring "legal" pretext used to avoid reality.

The website that StormFront was on is owned by a private company. They decided to discontinue the site. No 1st Amendment violation there.

Everybody understands that. But, people still have a Right to Free Speech, religion, etc.. Yes or no? If you claim that it only applies to the government, then you have to accept the fact that a law that forces someone to do things against their will in the private sector is a violation of their Rights as well...regardless of any statutory laws to the contrary.

The person in a private business should have the same right to accept or reject clientele based upon what the business owner wants. You can misapply laws all day long, but there are maxims of law that you should consider (which you obviously cannot.)

In the case of a baker who does not want to bake a cake for a gay couple, he does exactly what? Doesn't he run his business subject to the dictates of his conscience? But, he has to pay. He cannot "discriminate." However, the private company that owned the StormFront site can "discriminate." You simply choose to treat it differently when the bottom line is the same.

I'll ask again, maybe I'll get a answer this time....

Stormfront was dropped by their webhost for violating the terms of their service agreement. What agreement did the gay couple shopping for a cake violate to warrant being denied service by the baker?

Don't be a dumb ass. You apply two different laws to justify a different result when the bottom line issue is the same:

The web host provided a service and were allowed to discriminate. The baker offered a service and was not allowed to discriminate.

The fact that you can create different statutes in order to justify an unjust outcome does not make what you say the right thing to do... and more importantly, constitutional (in a de jure / lawful, constitutional Republic.) That's your answer and if you don't like it... bite me.

You remain stupid. Network solutions did not discriminate. The baker did.

Stormfront entered an agreement when they contracted Network Solutions to be their webhost. Stormfront violated that agreement and was rightfully booted. That's not discrimination.

The gay person who wanted a cake baked by a baker who bakes cakes, never entered any such agreement. Unlike Stormfront, they were denied service for no reason other than whom they choose to legally marry. That is discrimination.

 

[Humorme]

That's more accurate than what you previously said. In any event, the laws are skewed against the white people being able to believe in what they want to believe in. And there is always some rip roaring "legal" pretext used to avoid reality.

The website that StormFront was on is owned by a private company. They decided to discontinue the site. No 1st Amendment violation there.

Everybody understands that. But, people still have a Right to Free Speech, religion, etc.. Yes or no? If you claim that it only applies to the government, then you have to accept the fact that a law that forces someone to do things against their will in the private sector is a violation of their Rights as well...regardless of any statutory laws to the contrary.

The person in a private business should have the same right to accept or reject clientele based upon what the business owner wants. You can misapply laws all day long, but there are maxims of law that you should consider (which you obviously cannot.)

In the case of a baker who does not want to bake a cake for a gay couple, he does exactly what? Doesn't he run his business subject to the dictates of his conscience? But, he has to pay. He cannot "discriminate." However, the private company that owned the StormFront site can "discriminate." You simply choose to treat it differently when the bottom line is the same.

I'll ask again, maybe I'll get a answer this time....

Stormfront was dropped by their webhost for violating the terms of their service agreement. What agreement did the gay couple shopping for a cake violate to warrant being denied service by the baker?

Don't be a dumb ass. You apply two different laws to justify a different result when the bottom line issue is the same:

The web host provided a service and were allowed to discriminate. The baker offered a service and was not allowed to discriminate.

The fact that you can create different statutes in order to justify an unjust outcome does not make what you say the right thing to do... and more importantly, constitutional (in a de jure / lawful, constitutional Republic.) That's your answer and if you don't like it... bite me.

You remain stupid. Network solutions did not discriminate. The baker did.

Stormfront entered an agreement when they contracted Network Solutions to be their webhost. Stormfront violated that agreement and was rightfully booted. That's not discrimination.

The gay person who wanted a cake baked by a baker who bakes cakes, never entered any such agreement. Unlike Stormfront, they were denied service for no reason other than whom they choose to legally marry. That is discrimination.

Counselor, you presume that a group violated the terms of the contract. If you don't like what someone else says, you attribute it to hate propaganda. It sounds like you're the one trying to compensate for some kind of shortcoming.

You talk a lot of skeet on this board. If you spewed that disrespect to a man's face, he would bend you over his knee and take a leather strap to your hind quarters. And if I knew your mother, I'd ask her permission to introduce you to it.

 

[Unkotare]

It was the domain name folks, not the host. ICANN used to be under US freedom of speech protection, but we gave it to corporations who now sell it out to the highest bidder.

The internet is no longer protected by free speech, it is no longer free (in the ideological aspect, not the financial one) get used to it, more people will be losing domain names they've held for decades, some of us have had one since the beginnings of the internet - now we risk losing that address if we say something someone else doesn't like. It's horrible.

So, a lot of people will leave the Internet and do things the old fashioned way. But, the people that defend the censorship didn't feel that way when they were on the receiving end.

I think freedom is paramount, and we're damned fools to have given away ICANN.

We're going to end up in a proverbial dark ages with our information being filtered and approved by foreign nations... It's only a matter of time before politics "buy" the domain registrars and start shutting down the opposition. That kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<

The conspiracy theorists were right; it's only a matter of time before the internet becomes as biased and full of shit as the media, and perhaps even worse because there will be nothing but small isolated pockets with no voice who can speak the truth to the lies being spread. This nation is going to go socialist or communist mark my words. That also kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.< I don't' want my children, my grandchildren, to grow up in that shit; if I did I'd have left America already...

You can always begin petitioning Congress to go back to ICANN control of the net.

And, I'm with you. The amounts of control and America becoming a communist nation are fears that are about to be realized.

OTOH, I used to belong to the largest civilian militia in America. When the Internet came along, the anti-immigrant lobby came along and emptied the militias to become Internet champions of the world. People sat around and lobbying your Congresscritters went back to the lobbyists. Training hit an all time low. People sitting around their kitchen table, in restaurants, churches, etc. and actually discussing the world situation ceased.

The Internet created an aura of legitimacy for even the most idiotic people on the planet. Only on the Internet can you argue with people all day long while they claim to be in upper income brackets with a degree from Harvard only to find out they're 14, having trouble in school and their only contact with the outdoor world is whizzing people off on the Internet.

See this censorship as an opportunity. Stormfront and white racialists are booted off the Internet. Who were they recruiting? What were their accomplishments? Now, I'm finding out that the ADL is going to get to police You Tube. For years, the whites have done nothing except allow extremists with no real experience B.S. them on the Internet.

They fought the battle against the liberals tearing down the Confederate monuments and lost. Adding insult to injury, here in Georgia the liberals just put up a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr in the state Capitol. This whole Internet hoopla is doing nothing except causing the right to be dominated by inept idiots whose strategies are destroying the Republic.

Think of this as an opportunity... an opportunity to get out and meet people; a chance to read books; the excuse you need to actually go out and meet your elected representatives and tell them how you feel. You can be much more effective WITHOUT the Internet.

Let the left build their own Hell on earth.

"Becoming a communist nation "?

???

 

[Unkotare]

It was the domain name folks, not the host. ICANN used to be under US freedom of speech protection, but we gave it to corporations who now sell it out to the highest bidder.

The internet is no longer protected by free speech, it is no longer free (in the ideological aspect, not the financial one) get used to it, more people will be losing domain names they've held for decades, some of us have had one since the beginnings of the internet - now we risk losing that address if we say something someone else doesn't like. It's horrible.

So, a lot of people will leave the Internet and do things the old fashioned way. But, the people that defend the censorship didn't feel that way when they were on the receiving end.

I think freedom is paramount, and we're damned fools to have given away ICANN.

We're going to end up in a proverbial dark ages with our information being filtered and approved by foreign nations... It's only a matter of time before politics "buy" the domain registrars and start shutting down the opposition. That kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<

The conspiracy theorists were right; it's only a matter of time before the internet becomes as biased and full of shit as the media, and perhaps even worse because there will be nothing but small isolated pockets with no voice who can speak the truth to the lies being spread. This nation is going to go socialist or communist mark my words. That also kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.< I don't' want my children, my grandchildren, to grow up in that shit; if I did I'd have left America already...

You can always begin petitioning Congress to go back to ICANN control of the net.

And, I'm with you. The amounts of control and America becoming a communist nation are fears that are about to be realized.

OTOH, I used to belong to the largest civilian militia in America. When the Internet came along, the anti-immigrant lobby came along and emptied the militias to become Internet champions of the world. People sat around and lobbying your Congresscritters went back to the lobbyists. Training hit an all time low. People sitting around their kitchen table, in restaurants, churches, etc. and actually discussing the world situation ceased.

The Internet created an aura of legitimacy for even the most idiotic people on the planet. Only on the Internet can you argue with people all day long while they claim to be in upper income brackets with a degree from Harvard only to find out they're 14, having trouble in school and their only contact with the outdoor world is whizzing people off on the Internet.

See this censorship as an opportunity. Stormfront and white racialists are booted off the Internet. Who were they recruiting? What were their accomplishments? Now, I'm finding out that the ADL is going to get to police You Tube. For years, the whites have done nothing except allow extremists with no real experience B.S. them on the Internet.

They fought the battle against the liberals tearing down the Confederate monuments and lost. Adding insult to injury, here in Georgia the liberals just put up a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr in the state Capitol. This whole Internet hoopla is doing nothing except causing the right to be dominated by inept idiots whose strategies are destroying the Republic.

Think of this as an opportunity... an opportunity to get out and meet people; a chance to read books; the excuse you need to actually go out and meet your elected representatives and tell them how you feel. You can be much more effective WITHOUT the Internet.

Let the left build their own Hell on earth.

"The most idiotic people on the planet"? Like LARPers playing 'militia' in the woods?

 

[Unkotare]

It was the domain name folks, not the host. ICANN used to be under US freedom of speech protection, but we gave it to corporations who now sell it out to the highest bidder.

The internet is no longer protected by free speech, it is no longer free (in the ideological aspect, not the financial one) get used to it, more people will be losing domain names they've held for decades, some of us have had one since the beginnings of the internet - now we risk losing that address if we say something someone else doesn't like. It's horrible.

So, a lot of people will leave the Internet and do things the old fashioned way. But, the people that defend the censorship didn't feel that way when they were on the receiving end.

I think freedom is paramount, and we're damned fools to have given away ICANN.

We're going to end up in a proverbial dark ages with our information being filtered and approved by foreign nations... It's only a matter of time before politics "buy" the domain registrars and start shutting down the opposition. That kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<

The conspiracy theorists were right; it's only a matter of time before the internet becomes as biased and full of shit as the media, and perhaps even worse because there will be nothing but small isolated pockets with no voice who can speak the truth to the lies being spread. This nation is going to go socialist or communist mark my words. That also kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.< I don't' want my children, my grandchildren, to grow up in that shit; if I did I'd have left America already...

You can always begin petitioning Congress to go back to ICANN control of the net.

And, I'm with you. The amounts of control and America becoming a communist nation are fears that are about to be realized.

OTOH, I used to belong to the largest civilian militia in America. When the Internet came along, the anti-immigrant lobby came along and emptied the militias to become Internet champions of the world. People sat around and lobbying your Congresscritters went back to the lobbyists. Training hit an all time low. People sitting around their kitchen table, in restaurants, churches, etc. and actually discussing the world situation ceased.

The Internet created an aura of legitimacy for even the most idiotic people on the planet. Only on the Internet can you argue with people all day long while they claim to be in upper income brackets with a degree from Harvard only to find out they're 14, having trouble in school and their only contact with the outdoor world is whizzing people off on the Internet.

See this censorship as an opportunity. Stormfront and white racialists are booted off the Internet. Who were they recruiting? What were their accomplishments? Now, I'm finding out that the ADL is going to get to police You Tube. For years, the whites have done nothing except allow extremists with no real experience B.S. them on the Internet.

They fought the battle against the liberals tearing down the Confederate monuments and lost. Adding insult to injury, here in Georgia the liberals just put up a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr in the state Capitol. This whole Internet hoopla is doing nothing except causing the right to be dominated by inept idiots whose strategies are destroying the Republic.

Think of this as an opportunity... an opportunity to get out and meet people; a chance to read books; the excuse you need to actually go out and meet your elected representatives and tell them how you feel. You can be much more effective WITHOUT the Internet.

Let the left build their own Hell on earth.

A statue of MLK is "adding insult to injury"?


???