Registrar known for free speech protection makes a tough decision.
Domain name registrar Namecheap is the latest registrar to take action against The Daily Stormer, a hate site that has moved domains multiple times since the unrest in Charlottesville a week ago.
GoDaddy told the domain owner to find a new registrar. It moved the domain to Google, which suspendeded it. Then it moved to the dark web and Russia, then someone registered a .lol domain at Namecheap to point to the site.
Namecheap is known as a protector of free speech. It’s also a supporter of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has come out against the decision GoDaddy and Google made.
Nonetheless, Namecheap CEO Richard Kirkendall decided to kick the domain out. He said that statements on the site crossed the line to inciting violence.
You can tell this was a difficult decision for Kirkendall. After writing a blog post outlining his decision, he added an addendum that shows his angst over the decision.
I wonder if Uniregistry, the registry for .lol domains, will be pressured to suspend it? Uniregistry’s terms of service (like those of many new TLDs) are fairly open-ended to allow deletion of domains for basically any reason.
In an NPR interview last week, I noted that registrars don’t want to get involved in these issues because it’s a slippery slope. We can all agree that the content on Daily Stormer was truly abhorrent. I usually don’t like slippery slope arguments, but you can see how it could easily come into play with domains.
DailyStormer.lol has been transferred to Instra, which is part of Centralnic. The domain is resolving to an Instra holding page.
>”I usually don’t like slippery slope arguments”
That’s part of the reason why you supported the ICANN transition instead of the opposite, ay Andrew? 🙂 While the subject this time is certainly vile and abhorrent, it’s not hard to find examples which show how important, valid and plainly true slippery slope arguments are. There was a great example of it in my own area which wound up in court in fact, one of the largest such regions in the country. Fortunately that time the matter was soundly rebuked by the judge in charge, but the problem is that there is no guarantee of the right outcome in such cases because of how degraded, biased and corrupt so many are in this country and the inclination in such directions.
I’m not that familiar with the particulars of this case, but if there was a definite call to violence that would give me pause. However, if merely the suggestion of “inciting to violence” is only the case, then I would say that is pure slippery slope material and could be used as an “excuse” or pretext to put the kibosh on anything unpopular at the time, which is the problem.
I had read the EFF article some days ago already and agreed with it, which is the bottom line for me.
There is a saying about pollution which goes “the solution to pollution is dilution.” In the same way, the common suggestion that the answer to bad or offensive speech is more speech appears to be the best and safest course of action in order to avoid our country going completely down the toilet instead of wallowing half in and half out of the toilet like a giant half cockroach struggling to regain full human form.
I always thought freedom of speech meant that you can speak your mind and not get arrested. I don’t see why it should also mean companies need to host you domains or cities need to let you have a parade.
You’ve just articulated a slope that is so beyond slippery it’s more like a vertical cliff dropoff. That’s what all the civil rights protests were about to being with. These are public accommodations and the like, especially when you’re talking about parades on public property funded by everyone, including the people whose message you (and I) don’t like.