DreamHost allows Nazi Violence

Take action to stop violence:

Redwatch.info is a nazi website hosted by DreamHost that posts photos and personal data of human rights activist to encourage violent attacks against them. This week in Warsaw, an activist named Maciek was critically injured and almost killed when two nazis stabbed, kicked, and pepper sprayed him after Maciek's personal data appeared on redwatch.info -- for more info on this incident, see http://www.indymedia.org/en/2006/05/839847.shtml

Demand that DreamHost cease hosting for redwatch.info immediately. Enabling nazi violence is far beyond any notion of free speech in DreamHost's non-censorship policy.

Go to http://www.dreamhost.com/contact.cgi to contact DreamHost and tell them to get rid of redwatch.info

From a recent post on the Dreamhost Blog by "Pete":

In reply to:

---

DreamHost strongly believes in the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees its citizens freedom of speech and freedom of the press, among other things (both of which can apply to websites.) We made a business decision long ago to value freedom of speech above any potential offense someone might take over the content of a site hosted by us.

To slightly modify a motto I once saw, the difficulty of liberty is not “I must be free”, but “That other jerk must be free as well.” (David Gerisch, I believe.)

---

Well said! And nobody here appreciates your "triple posting" in numerous forums. Go away.

"Go to http://www.dreamhost.com/contact.cgi to contact DreamHost and tell them how much you appreciate their respect for freedom of speech"

--rlparker

In reply to:

---

To slightly modify a motto I once saw, the difficulty of liberty is not “I must be free”, but “That other jerk must be free as well.” (David Gerisch, I believe.)

---

I agree as well. I read a bit about a person who lived in two parts of the country, at different times, for an extended period. One could be described as very right-wing, and the other very left-wing. He said the only difference was who they chose to include and who they chose to exclude.

Many people I know who preach that everyone must be tolerant of one another, are intolerant of people who do not agree.

In reply to:

---

Many people I know who preach that everyone must be tolerant of one another, are intolerant of people who do not agree.

---

How true! I'm returning to my hole to contemplate that thought a bit...and to repeat to myself 1,000 times. "I will not respond to trolls, I will not respond to trolls.."
--rlparker

Friends -

Free speech is wonderful. However, redwatch.info is not about expressing a nazi political philosophy. Its function is to display the names, photos, and personal data of those who disagree with nazis for the explicit purpose of terrorizing these individuals. There is an entire English section of the site, which includes the following quote in large, bright yellow lettering:

"If joining the National Front means broken bones then its support will be lost." (i.e., we should injure those who oppose us.)

The purpose of this site is to help identify people who disagree with nazis so they can be given "broken bones." I can't imagine a more insidious use of the internet than this.

This isn't a question of legality -- I don't doubt that DreamHost is perfectly within US laws while hosting redwatch.info. Instead, since this matter was brought to DreamHost's attention, this is a question of whether DreamHost is willing to continue to provide nazis with the tools to terrorize, injure, and kill those that they disagree with. Personally, I trust DreamHost to take steps to stop users from using DreamHost's tools towards a goal of violent attacks on innocent folks who happen to disagree with nazis.

Pardon the "triple posting," wasn't aware of the taboo. Good day.

I think it is disgusting that a website like this exists. The people responsible for it have no concept of how humans are supposed to behave; however, I defend their right to freedom of speech.

Provided the site complies with the laws that DreamHost are bound by, I see no reason why they should not continue to provide these scum with web services, and take them for every cent they possibly can.

DreamHost could be prosecuted as an associated party to a crime under Sections 422.6 and 422.55 of the California penal code against hate crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

The U.S. Congress defined in 1992 a hate crime as a crime in which "the defendant's conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity of another individual or group of individuals" (HR 4797).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/422.55-422.57.html

422.55.  For purposes of this title, and for purposes of all other
state law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly
requires a different meaning, the following shall apply:
   (a) "Hate crime" means a criminal act committed, in whole or in
part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived
characteristics of the victim:
   (1) Disability.
   (2) Gender.
   (3) Nationality.
   (4) Race or ethnicity.
   (5) Religion.
   (6) Sexual orientation.
   (7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these
actual or perceived characteristics.
   (b) "Hate crime" includes, but is not limited to, a violation of
Section 422.6.

The role of hate speech in the hate crimes is defined here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/422.6-422.865.html

422.6.  (a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law,
shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate,
interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her
by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or
laws of the United States in whole or in part because of one or more
of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in
subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.

(emphasis added)

In section (c) it's clear that hate speech is a relevant factor in convicting someone of a hate crime in California, even hate speech alone without an action is a crime - under the very special circumstances defined in that law, such as threatening violence against a specific person, which is clearly the case for the redwatch.info site:

However, no person may be convicted of violating
subdivision (a) based upon speech alone, except upon a showing that
the speech itself threatened violence against a specific person or
group of persons and that the defendant had the apparent ability to
carry out the threat.

So DreamHost's clients (of the redwatch.info site) are committing a crime under Section 422.6 of the Californian Penal Code since they are making "speech which itself threatens violence against specific persons". They risk 12 months prison or a $5000 fine.

DreamHost has a clause about not allowing content which is illegal.

If DreamHost management acts in "good faith" to prevent the continued crime, then they would presumably be able to defend themselves from being convicted as a supporting partner in crime and avoiding having to manage the DreamHost service from inside a prison cell.

TOS: netiquette and lawfulness

DreamHost has two ways of legally terminating redwatch.info's client contract: http://www.dreamhost.com/tos.html


INTERNET ETIQUETTE

1. Electronic forums such as mail distribution lists and Usenet news groups all have expectations regarding subject area and appropriate etiquette for posting. Users of these forums should be considerate of the expectations and sensitivities of others on the network when posting material for electronic distribution. The network resources of DreamHost Webhosting may not be used to impersonate another person or misrepresent authorization to act on behalf of others or DreamHost Webhosting. All messages transmitted via DreamHost Webhosting should correctly identify the sender; users may not alter the attribution of origin in electronic mail messages or posting.


Since when has threatening to kill people and publishing their personal biodata been consistent with netiquette?

DreamHost also has a terms of service clause which shows that it is not going to defend free speech at all costs: it refuses child pornography and copyright violations and other legal restrictions on free speech:


LAWFUL PURPOSE

1. Customer may only use DreamHost Webhosting's Server for lawful purpose. Transmission of any material in violation of any Country, Federal, State or Local regulation is prohibited. To this effect, child pornography is strictly prohibited as well as housing any copyrighted information (to which the customer does not hold the copyright) on DreamHost Webhosting's Server.


This also says that DreamHost respects laws of other Countries (regarding transmission of any material). It can cut off redwatch.info's access according to the Terms Of Service since redwatch.info certainly violates Polish law on protection of personal data and against murder and against attempted murder (the authors of redwatch.info are prime suspects).

Edited by cal4226 on 05/26/06 08:28 AM (server time).

webedito423 wrote:

In reply to:

---

This isn't a question of legality

---

In fact it is a question of legality, and of DreamHost's Terms of Service. See my posts in this thread. Apparently other DreamHost forum readers are not familiar with Californian law, nor with DreamHost's Terms of Service.

I am sure that most DreamHost customers would abhor the type of sites you refer to, myself included.

But I always have two phrases keep popping into my mind, "know thine enemy" and "knowledge is power". I am sure it is better to know where these sites are, who is posting to them and who is reading them.

No doubt DreamHost could delete these sites in a micro-second, but I wouldn't want them popping up again from some strange anonymously routed site or untouchable island in the middle of an Ocean. Perhaps where they are now is most convenient.

Let us perhaps be a little cunning, and wait and watch!

Just my two-pennyworth.



--
Norm
Opinions are my own views and are not the views of DreamHost.
Any advice offered by me should be acted upon only at your own risk.

The CA law you cite does not list "political affiliation" as one of the characteristics of the victim.

As far as the TOS, I don't see how this particular sites violates either of those.

In reply to:

---

DreamHost could be prosecuted as an associated party to a crime under Sections 422.6 and 422.55 of the California penal code against hate crimes.

---

While I appreciate your recitation of the California statutes that follow in your post, niether California, nor U.S. federal, law attaches criminal liability to a person or corporation as "an associated party to a crime". There are provisions for for attaching jeapordy for "accessories" and "accomplices", though each of those catagories requires specific intent, and overt action(s) on the part of the accessory or accomplices for the "association" to be criminal. There is also the crime of conspiracy, but that entails an entirely different level of cooperative action exist than mere "association".

Dreamhost's "association" with the criminal acts of a customer is much like that of a landlord, who is "associated" with the criminal acts of a tenant by having rented the space where a crime is committed to one who commits a crime - a concept that does not exist in California, or U.S. federal, law, absent the other types of involvement mentioned above.

In reply to:

---

So DreamHost's clients (of the redwatch.info site) are committing a crime under Section 422.6 of the Californian Penal Code since they are making "speech which itself threatens violence against specific persons". They risk 12 months prison or a $5000 fine.

---

As I do not speak/read/ Polish, I cannot comment as to whether or not that statement might be accurate, though I should point out that, irrespective of your opinion, the truth of that statement can only be determined by a court ;-).

In reply to:

---

If DreamHost management acts in "good faith" to prevent the continued crime, then they would presumably be able to defend themselves from being convicted as a supporting partner in crime and avoiding having to manage the DreamHost service from inside a prison cell.

---

That sounds logical enough, but it is just not true, as there is no obligation under applicable laws for one to act to "prevent" a crime.

While I can see that this is an important issue for you, and I greatly appreciate your approaching the discussion with intelligence, research, and respect for proper ettiquette in this forum (unlike that of the original poster), I can't help but think you are not using a productive srategy by instigating this discussion here:

The site you to which you object (I will not contribute to increasing it's visiblility to search engines, and others, by mentioning it's name) has been given far greater exposure in the eyes of many as a direct result of your posts here. Do you really believe that is a good thing? The operators of that site will communicate with others, and distribute the information they want to distribute in one way or another, and those who want that information will receive it. Elevating the visibility of the site merely serves to expand it's reach, and may well result in the distribution of that information to many who would never have seen it.

There are few things that will aggravate many Americans more than the concept of a "mob" trying to "bully" someone into silencing another - our tradition of "freedom of speech" has never been particularly sensitive to the responsibilities that are appropriately attached. Many tend to ignore "hate speech" as the domain of the ignorant and foolish, and refuse to elevate it to general public attention. The original poster solicited others to "Go to http://www.dreamhost.com/contact.cgi to contact DreamHost and tell them to get rid of *****.info". I'll resist that approach to problem resolution each and every time I see it.

Most people do not condone what you describe as the site's agenda, or it's described methods, but I responded negatively to the original poster because I do not believe Dreamhost, or any other internet service provider, should terminate an account because the contents offends someone. I believe the concept of legally proscribing "hate speech" is ill advised, and is only one example of America drifting towards the types of fascist governments with which much of the rest of the world has already had experience. Preserving everyone's ability to express their ideas, not just those that "most people" approve of, is a big part of what "freedom of speech" is all about.

I suggest your interests are much better served by posting these concerns directly to Dreamhost, the California Attorney General, or others, if you want to bring serious pressure to bear without "advertising" the site in question, and I hope you continue to receive public resistance to your attempts to "bully" a service provider with "public opinion".
--rkparker

Very well said, Norm!

(I wanna grow up to be like Norm!)
--rlparker

I can't go into a lot of detail about any specific case, but as the main person who handles these sorts of issues at DreamHost I thought I should probably say something about our policies.

Regarding our free speech policies:

We do have a very strong free speech policy, and at any given point in time we likely host hundreds of sites that every single employee in our company would find personally abhorrent and offensive. That said, our belief is that freedom of expression should apply equally (if not especially) toward those who have unpopular opinions. Otherwise, there isn't much point in having freedom of speech at all.

So, yes, this means that we host sites promoting racist/fascist ideology (and, for that matter, sites promoting just about every ideology out there - mainstream or otherwise). We recognize that some customers may be uncomfortable with this, but it is a policy that is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

However, we also recognize that freedom of speech does not cover everything, and our own policies reflect this. We do not allow for customers to violate US law, for example. This applies not only to things like copyright infringement, but also the hosting of child pornography, death threats, etc.

As such, we have a long and cooperative relationship with law enforcement. Upon receiving complaints regarding the legality of a given site we investigate it internally, calling upon law enforcement in situations where we feel that it is warranted. The nature of such investigations is such that we are often unable to comment on their status or provide details on what is going on behind the scenes.

As for this case in particular, I can only say this: We're aware of the site, and of the concerns and facts surrounding the recent incidents in Poland. If any of you can provide us with additional information that could be of use, please don't hesitate to let us know. Beyond that, though, I'm afraid that we cannot comment on this matter any further.


- Jeff @ DreamHost
- DH Discussion Forum Admin

Thanks for the comment, Jeff. Your thoughts echo exactly what I feel about the matter, and it pleases me that DreamHost adopts a responsible position.

Thanks you, Jeff for clarifying Dreamhost's position on such matters. FWIW, I think the position you have articulated is extremely fair, balanced, and appropriate.
--rlparker

Thanks, Jeff, for responding. I'm just seeing this thread now, since I don't get to read all the posting boards I'd like every day. I also want to add a "Well, said!" to Norm.

I chose DreamHost because of their free speech policy (among other reasons). I've never had anything I think others would consider "hate speech" on my site (especially now, since I'm revamping it, and there isn't much on it), but I have a problem with outlawing hate speech. I believe U.S. citizens have a right to hate; what we don't have a right to do is commit certain acts because of that hate. Another thing about hate speech is that it protects against hating only certain groups, but not all. Still, like I said, if someone hates any group of people, they have that right, for any reason, even if you and I would think it's a stupid reason and they're stupid people. But they don't have the right to commit violence or discrimination against those they hate.

Free speech protects even the most offensive speech. If people didn't get offended, we wouldn't need freedom of speech, because no one would be upset at anything another person said.

Jen
http://www.SassyDevil.com/

>Another thing about hate speech is that it protects against hating only certain groups, but not all.

And that's why I'm against any "hate" laws. All the laws should be implemented equally for all people.

Jessey:
> however, I defend their right to freedom of speech.

Sorry, just can't let that total BS stand without comment.

This is from the guy who uses Admin power in the DH wiki to suppress views differing from his:

01:23, 26 May 2006 Scjessey protected Preventing image hotlinking (Please discuss changes or renames in the talk page before doing anything.)

18:51, 27 May 2006 Facts and a bunch of discussion, including "personal attacks" by Jessey, and ending with a request by "Anonymous" to end further discussion.

22:01, 27 May 2006 Scjessey blocked "User:Anonymous" with an expiry time of 72 hours (Personal attacks)

22:02, 27 May 2006 Scjessey protected Talk:Preventing image hotlinking (Temporarily protected to avoid pointless bickering)

22:02, 27 May 2006 Current page with no indication of discussion or disagreement over article content.

Poof. Mission accomplished. Differing views suppressed. Another "reference" says basically same thing as Jessey's personal article: http://keystonewebsites.com/articles/hotlinking.php.

Oh give it up already. Simon is a important member of the Dreamhost community. I'm sorry you two have apparently disagreed on some points, but there's no sense in continuing to bring this up.

--Matttail
art.googlies.net - personal website

> Simon is a important member of the Dreamhost community. I'm sorry you two have apparently disagreed on some points,

No disagreement there. Nice of you.

> but there's no sense in continuing to bring this up.

Maybe not, but when Simon says something here about defending free speech around the same time he deletes comments and "protects" his article in the wiki, I think I'll mention how I have seen different, from him.

Doesn't happen every day or week, but every once in a while.

Power corrupts. Absolute Admin power corrupts Absolutely Adminly. :-)

Looks like this becomes a diplomatic issue.
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/depeches/0,14-0,39-27389746@7-37,0.html

Now see who's right.

For English readers. Risking copyright infringement in exchange for reducing translation sites' bandwidth ("theft?").

For academic and discussion purposes... Thanks to Babelfish.

Warsaw requires the assistance of the USA to close a site néonazi in Polish
AFP 28.05.06 | 16h02

V arsovie required of the American authorities to help them to close an Internet site néonazi which in particular published black lists the homosexual ones and personalities and militants of left in Poland, announced to Sunday the spokesman of the government.

"the Ministry for Foreign Affairs addressed a note to the American authorities", indicated Mr. Konrad Ciesiolkiewicz quoted by agency PAP.

According to Warsaw, the site www.redwatch.info/sites/redwatch.htm related to the Polish branch of the international organization "Blood and Honor" ("Blood and Honor") is hebergé by an American waiter and thus escapes from competences from Polish justice.

In February, the parquet floor of Warsaw opened an investigation into this site following the publication of its black lists of personalities of left accompanied sometimes by their addresses or telephone number.

Within the framework of an operation known as Redwatch, Blood and Honour had required of its sympathizers to gather information "on the people engaged in an antifascist activity and antiracist, on the immigrants of color, the activists and the sympathizers of the left as well as homosexual lobby and paedophile".

May 16, a militant of the humans right, whose name was on the lists of Blood and Honour, has escaped little with an attempted murder to the knife in a street of Warsaw. According to the American embassy, the victim was Jewish.

The Reporters organization without borders alerted the Polish ministry of Justice on serious threats uttered against about fifteen journalists of left whose names were published on the site néonazi.

In reply to:

---

Now see who's right.

---

Neither the ultimate outcome of diplomatic posturing, nor the ultimate resolution of this issue has anything to do with "who is right". Govenments are not, and have never been, *moral* authorities.
--rlparker

Even bad law is a law (Socrates)
Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else (Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789; Article 4)

i.e., Threatening others is not a freedom.
(It's rather a crime, and against freedom.)

Governing is to foresee, not to manage.
It's up to the government to establish the good common sense in the society so that everyone can enjoy their freedom.
To make a hosting company respect the law, for example.

Nice post! Those are all good representations of human thought (though the "i.e" is a bit of loose paraphrasing).

You are certainly free to believe, and express, what you think it is "up to govenment" to do; I share the same freedom, and I reject your "for example" ("to make a hosting company respect the law").

"The law" varies greatly from time to time and from juridiction to jurisdiction, as do the attitudes and opinions of humans. I have found it *impossible* to "make" anyone "respect" anything. It is possible to force copmpliance, and/or obedience, but that has no more to do with "respect" than "law" has to do with morality.

That was the point of my post: Compliance with the edicts of governments has no relationship to morality. The sanctioning of a behavior, or the condeming of another, makes neither behavior morally "right" nor "wrong".

I don't support what the site in question is reported to do. I would not do that. Governments from time to time may proscribe that behavior, but governments, and laws change. Change is often brought about by agitation, and freedom of expression (even for those presently outside the confines of "the law") are an important agent for change.

You believe the site is in question is in violation of "the law"; I don't know if it is or not, but would far rather defend it's right to exist (no matter how distastefull) than to involve *any* government in policing speech or expression.

When/if those responsible for the site involve themselves in "criminal" activity (via conspiracy or active participation) other than rhetoric, you will find me arguing as vehemently for their prosecution as I am now arguing for their protection. To me, it's a lot like the nursery school ditty, "Sticks and Stones may Break My Bones, but words will never hurt me."

Granted, my personal distaste for the current attention to "political correctness" may well be colouring my views on such subjects. I'm just done with people screaming and yelling about what another *said*, and feel like telling everyone to "just grow up" :-)
--rlparker

Well said, rlparker!

I didn't look at this site. If they're listing names and addresses of people and telling others to go kill or harm them, they are probably violating the law. I think it's like the pro-lifers who were posting the names and addresses of doctors who performed abortions on the Nuremburg website; they don't have the right to aid in the committing of violence. But I don't know exactly what the laws are or remember what they were regarding that. It's been a while.

Still, I know at least for a while, they couldn't do anything to those who were putting up signs in real life with names and addresses, because this information is public information. So I don't know what the laws say.

Nevertheless, free speech should never be restricted unless someone is physically harmed by it, or their rights are violated. You can't slander someone, but you can say anything you want about them if it's true.

Like rlparker, I, too, am sick of the political correctness.

Jen
http://www.SassyDevil.com/

I would like to make a few points here.

The people who created this thread and the people who are trying to intimidate DreamHost into terminating redwatch.info from their servers are from INDYMEDIA.
Read this: http://www.indymedia.org/en/2006/05/839847.shtml

My point is, that INDYMEDIA actively puts personal information up on "White Nationalist" activists frequently. Here is one example: http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2006/06/20194.php

INDYMEDIA = LEFTISTS, NEO-MARXISTS, HYPOCRITES

Secondly, I would like to remind everyone that DreamHost staff have said "We have investigated the account and the website and have yet to find anything illegal contained within it."

There is NOTHING illegal about redwatch.info

:)
Edited by Vaio on 06/06/06 06:43 PM (server time).

Their "offensive free speech" would accomplish less if you ignored it rather than posting about it for everyone to read.

Check out Gordaen's Knowledge, the blog, and the MR2 page.

FBI and Polish authorities shut it down:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060706/tc_afp/polandusinternetgayextremist

jason

I think you are right.

And the trouble with these so called free speech sites is that if the free speech made by others does not fit their own ideas then just change the speech and lie about what was said and by whom.

I have been targeted and libelled at this site just for making a comment in this thread:-
http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=227

Seems I work for DreamHost and mentioned something about rabbits or wabbits.
Clearly a strange person who runs the site and has never bothered to read the whole thread...sigh.
Just as well I am able to switch to another parallel universe and ignore it all!



--
Norm

Opinions are my own views, not DreamHosts'.
I am NOT a DreamHost employee OK!!

You act on my advice at your own risk!